Skip to main content
Glama

normalize_telemetry

Translate raw sensor readings and machine data from any OEM's proprietary format into universal canonical FCS fields for semantic understanding and automation.

Instructions

Translate raw machine telemetry from any OEM's proprietary format into universal canonical FCS (FoundryNet Canonical Schema) data. Maps vendor-specific column names like "Spindle_Speed", "servo_load_x", "CoolantTemp", "FeedRateOverride" into standard fields like spindle_speed_rpm, axes.x_load_pct, sensor_readings.coolant_temp, feed_override_pct.

Accepts a data dict of {raw_field: value}. If machine_id (mint_id or internal_id) is omitted but oem+model+serial are provided, silently auto-provisions the machine identity (same effect as calling identify_machine first).

Each call:

  • Returns canonical_data + a per-field mapping_id (use mapping_id with /v1/feedback/{mapping_id}/correct if a mapping is wrong)

  • Writes a row to forge_normalized_history (visible via query_machine_history)

  • Evaluates active triggers; the response includes a triggers_fired array if any condition matched. The actual webhooks fire async, so the array tells you what was triggered without blocking on remote latency.

USE WHEN: you have raw machine data — a CSV row, a sensor reading, an MES export, an alarm log line — and need to either (a) understand it semantically using canonical field names, (b) feed an automation that watches canonical fields, or (c) build up history for the machine.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
machine_idNo
oemNo
modelNo
serialNo
siteNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fully discloses side effects: auto-provisions machine identity, writes to forge_normalized_history, evaluates triggers, and notes asynchronous webhook firing. No contradictions 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?

Description is relatively long but well-structured: first sentence defines core purpose, followed by mapping examples, per-call effects in bullet-like format, and a clear 'USE WHEN' section. Could be slightly more concise, but each sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 6 parameters (1 required), output schema exists, and the tool has side effects, the description is complete. It explains output fields (canonical_data, mapping_id, triggers_fired), database writes, and trigger behavior, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the 'data' dict, the optional machine_id, and the oem/model/serial combination for auto-provisioning. However, 'site' parameter is not explained. Overall, adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool translates raw machine telemetry from proprietary formats into universal canonical FCS data. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning auto-provisioning behavior similar to identify_machine and writing history accessible via query_machine_history.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit 'USE WHEN' section lists three specific scenarios (a, b, c) and implies when not to use (e.g., use correct_mapping for fixing mapping errors). Also notes alternative identify_machine for identity provisioning.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/FoundryNet/forge-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server