grinder_mathDetermine steps/clicks difference and directions between setting labels (C3).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to_label | Yes | ||
| from_label | Yes | ||
| grinder_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| steps | Yes | ||
| direction | Yes | ||
| step_unit | Yes | ||
| burr_gap_travel_microns | Yes | ||
| relative_coarseness_note | 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=false, and the description's 'Determine' is consistent with a safe computation. It adds that the result is a steps/clicks difference and direction, but does not reveal additional behavioral nuance such as label assumptions or failure behavior.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, and the key operation is front-loaded. The unexplained 'C3' parenthetical costs it a top score because it is cryptic rather than clarifying.
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?
For a read-only math utility with an output schema, the high-level purpose is enough for selection, but the agent must guess the labeling convention and why grinder_id is required. Combined with no usage routing, the definition is workable but not fully self-sufficient.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the meaning, but it only loosely connects from_label/to_label as 'setting labels' and never explains the label syntax or the grinder_id parameter. It also doesn't state the mapping between labels and steps/clicks, which is the core semantic the agent needs.
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?
Clearly identifies a calculation: it determines the difference/direction in steps/clicks between two setting labels, so an agent knows what the tool computes. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like set_grinder_position, and the parenthetical 'C3' is unexplained.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to call this rather than a sibling such as set_grinder_position or suggest_next_step. It neither states prerequisites (e.g., a registered grinder) nor when the math should be used, so an agent must infer from context.
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.