update_beanUpdate coffee bag fields. Changing dial_category changes what the engine advises (G5, C10), so say why in the optional note.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | ||
| reason | No | Optional free-text note, appended to the bag notes as an ordinary line. Omit it and nothing is written. | |
| bean_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 establish that this is a mutating but non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact: changing dial_category alters engine advice (G5, C10), and recommends recording the reason in the note. It does not contradict annotations, though it leaves partial-update/auth details undisclosed.
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?
Two sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the caveat is placed immediately after. Every clause earns its place.
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 large update tool, the description is brief, but the schema carries the field details, annotations carry safety/idempotency, and an output schema exists. The only high-risk behavior, dial_category's effect on engine advice, is explicitly called out, making the definition largely complete. It lacks sibling differentiation, already penalized in usage guidelines.
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 schema coverage at 33%, the description does not compensate broadly, but it adds valuable semantics for dial_category (engine advice) and reason (where to explain changes). bean_id and fields are left to their names/schema, and most field details are already described inside the input schema.
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?
Description names a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('coffee bag fields'), and the title reinforces it. It is easily distinguished from sibling update_shot and the registration tools. The dial_category sentence adds context, making the tool's core purpose unambiguous.
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 description gives no guidance on when to choose update_bean over alternatives such as update_shot or register_coffee, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The only usage note is a field-level caution about dial_category and the optional reason, not a tool-selection rule.
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.