Skip to main content
Glama

ShotPulled

by com.shotpulled
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Set calibration offset

set_maintenance_offset
Idempotent

Record how far a maintenance job moved the reference, on an entry that opened a calibration epoch. Takes an ENTRY, not a piece of equipment: the offset belongs to the event that caused it, which is what lets several of them compose for a recipe locked before all of them. Zero is a legitimate measurement and means "measured, and it had not moved" — omit offset_value entirely to clear it back to unmeasured.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceNoHow it was arrived at: pull, counted, or typed
entry_idYesThe maintenance entry that opened the epoch, from list_grinders
evidenceNoOne line recording what it rested on, e.g. "Reference pull 1.38 g/s against 1.74 g/s locked."
offset_valueNoClicks to ADD to a pre-clean reading to get the same grind today, signed along the collar's own number direction. 0 records "unchanged"; omit to clear the measurement

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entryYes
messageYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / entry / properties / details / additionalProperties
      Added value: +true
    • addedOutput schema / properties / entry / properties / details / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "from": {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "properties": {
+      "components_spec": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "nominal_step": {
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      "setting_scheme": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "setting_scheme",
+      "nominal_step",
+      "components_spec"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "to": {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "properties": {
+      "components_spec": {
+        "type": "null"
+      },
+      "nominal_step": {
+        "type": "number"
+      },
+      "setting_scheme": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "setting_scheme",
+      "nominal_step",
+      "components_spec"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / entry / properties / details / required
      Added value: +[]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / entry / properties / details / type
      Previous value: -"null"New value: +[
+  "null",
+  "object"
+]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / entry / properties / details_known
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / entry / properties / evidence / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / entry / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "equipment_kind",
-  "equipment_id",
-  "task",
-  "performed_at",
-  "disturbs_zero",
-  "note",
-  "offset_value",
-  "offset_source",
-  "offset_at",
-  "evidence",
-  "details",
-  "details_version",
-  "created_at"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "equipment_kind",
+  "equipment_id",
+  "task",
+  "performed_at",
+  "disturbs_zero",
+  "note",
+  "offset_value",
+  "offset_source",
+  "offset_at",
+  "evidence",
+  "details",
+  "details_version",
+  "created_at",
+  "details_known"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: zero is a legitimate measurement meaning 'unchanged', and omitting offset_value clears the measurement. It also explains that the offset belongs to the event, enabling composition. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and efficiently explains the key nuances (entry vs equipment, zero vs omit). It packs several important points into a few sentences without being verbose, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (1 required), an output schema exists, and annotations cover idempotency and non-read-only behavior, the description is fairly complete. It explains the conceptual background (calibration epoch, composition) and the critical zero/omit distinction. It doesn't cover error cases or prerequisites, but those are not essential for an agent to call it correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds a subtle nuance on offset_value (zero means measured and unchanged) and clarifies entry_id's role, but these are largely already in the schema. The description does not add substantial new semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'record' and the specific resource: how far a maintenance job moved the reference, on an entry that opened a calibration epoch. It explicitly distinguishes from equipment-level tools by emphasizing 'Takes an ENTRY, not a piece of equipment,' which differentiates it from siblings like set_grinder_position or update_grinder.

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 on when to use the tool: when a maintenance entry opened a calibration epoch, and clarifies that it applies to an entry, not equipment. It also explains how to clear the measurement. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for equipment-level offsets, though it implies them.

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

All ShotPulled toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources