ShotPulled

Register a machine program

register_program

Register a programmed shot button on a machine. A program cuts the shot off either by weight (program_type "volumetric", set target_volume_g) or by time (program_type "timed", set target_time_s). One machine can have a mix of both.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`machine_id`	Yes
`description`	No
`program_type`	No	Cutoff method: "volumetric" (weight) or "timed" (duration). Defaults to volumetric.
`target_time_s`	No	Target shot duration cutoff in seconds (required for timed programs)
`volume_source`	No	Confidence in the stored cutoff value, for either type
`program_number`	Yes	Program number / button index (e.g. 1 or 2)
`target_volume_g`	No	Target yield cutoff in grams (required for volumetric programs)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`message`	Yes
`program_id`	Yes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations provide no behavioral signals, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful context: programs cut shots off by weight or time, and a machine can mix both types. However, it does not disclose behavior around duplicate program numbers, overwriting, or other registration side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the mode-specific parameter guidance is compact, and the mixed-mode note adds useful context without repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter tool with an output schema and 71% schema coverage, the description covers the essential mode-selection logic and the mixed-mode rule. It does not address duplicate registration or machine prerequisites, but those are not necessary for basic correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description goes beyond the schema by explicitly linking program_type to the correct target parameter: 'set target_volume_g' for volumetric and 'set target_time_s' for timed. This clarifies the relationship between mutually exclusive parameters and compensates for incomplete schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific action: 'Register a programmed shot button on a machine', and then defines what a program is. This makes the resource and scope clear, and it is easily distinguished from sibling register_coffee, register_grinder, etc.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: registering a shot program on a machine, with two possible modes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the register_* tool family is naturally separated by resource type.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ShotPulled tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a distinct resource or action: register_* and list_* are separated by entity, shot tools are split into log/update/delete/diagnose, and the two diagnose variants are explicitly differentiated by dry-run vs. logged evaluation. There is no meaningful overlap that would make an agent choose the wrong tool if it reads the descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: register_*, list_*, set_*, update_*, log_*, get_*. The only deviations are noun-first compound names like grinder_math and kb_changelog, which are still readable and do not break the overall predictability.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, this server exceeds the 25+ threshold where the interface becomes heavy for an agent to navigate. Many of the tools are simple register_/List_ pairs across seven entity types, which inflates the surface area even though each individual tool is understandable.

Completeness3/5

Core workflows are well covered: logging, updating, deleting, and diagnosing shots; maintaining equipment; and navigating machine state. However, there are notable lifecycle gaps such as no way to list or delete registered programs, no update/delete operations for most equipment types, and no recipe deletion or unlock, which can leave an agent stuck after certain user requests.

Resources

Need Help?