get_kb_versionRetrieve the current version of the knowledge base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kb_version | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the basic retrieval action, but it does not contradict the annotations either. Given the low bar enabled by rich annotations, a neutral score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that states the exact operation and target. There is no redundant or filler content, and the key information is front-loaded. It earns its place by being perfectly compact and informative at a basic level.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, an output schema exists to define the return value, and annotations cover the operational behavior, nothing critical is missing from the description. It could have added a hint about what 'knowledge base version' refers to, but for a zero-parameter read-only getter, the description is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter information to explain. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4; the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps because there are no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' and identifies the resource as 'the current version of the knowledge base,' making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It does not differentiate itself from siblings, but no sibling appears to handle the same operation, so the lack of explicit distinction is not a significant gap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied by the name and description: an agent would naturally use this to get the knowledge base version. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related tools like kb_changelog or get_stats, nor any conditions under which it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools sort cleanly into register_*, list_*, set_*, and log_* families with clear resource targets. The main ambiguity is between diagnose_shot and diagnose_preview, which are deliberately similar, and between get_dial_state and suggest_next_step, but the descriptions resolve these reasonably well.
Naming is overwhelmingly consistent snake_case verb_noun, such as register_coffee, list_shots, update_shot, and set_active. Minor exceptions like kb_changelog next to get_kb_version and grinder_math break the pattern slightly.
With 34 tools, the surface is well over the 25+ too-many threshold. The resource families are individually clear, but the assistant would be easier to navigate with fewer, more consolidated tools or less KB introspection surface.
The core dialing workflow is well covered: registration, shot logging, diagnosis, dial state, recipes, and maintenance. However, most registered entities such as grinders, machines, waters, scales, and programs have create+list but no update/delete, and recipes have no unlock/delete lifecycle.