lock_recipeLock a successful shot as the reference dialing recipe for this equipment profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| drink_intent | Yes | ||
| from_shot_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| message | 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 indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds useful context that the tool sets a persistent reference recipe for the current equipment profile, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether a previous locked recipe is overwritten. It does not contradict the annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. Every word contributes to the core action and outcome.
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?
The tool has two required parameters and zero schema descriptions, so the description carries a heavy burden. It leaves `drink_intent` unexplained, does not clarify how the equipment profile is resolved, and omits any mention of overwriting behavior. While annotations and output schema help, the description alone is not complete enough for confident invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain `from_shot_id` or `drink_intent`. It indirectly suggests `from_shot_id` should reference a successful shot, but `drink_intent` (straight vs. milk) is entirely unexplained, leaving the agent without enough meaning to populate the parameter correctly.
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 opens with a specific verb ('Lock') and names the object ('a successful shot') and the outcome ('reference dialing recipe for this equipment profile'). It clearly conveys what the tool does and is distinguishable from siblings like log_shot or update_shot, though it does not explicitly name the distinction.
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 phrase 'a successful shot' implies the tool should be used after a shot has been dialed in successfully, which is a useful prerequisite. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it.
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.