Skip to main content
Glama
LGDiMaggio

Predictive Maintenance MCP Server

by LGDiMaggio

diagnose_vibration_tool

Perform comprehensive vibration diagnosis: load signal, run FFT, PSD, STFT, detect bearing faults, assess ISO severity, and synthesize results into an actionable report.

Instructions

Full integrated diagnosis: FFT + PSD + STFT + bearing faults + ISO severity.

    Comprehensive vibration diagnostic pipeline. Loads signal from repository,
    runs all analyses, and synthesizes results into an actionable report.

    Args:
        signal_id: ID of the stored signal.
        rpm: Machine operating speed in RPM.
        bearing_id: Bearing designation for fault detection (optional).
        machine_class: ISO machine class (default 'II').
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
signal_idYes
rpmYes
bearing_idNo
machine_classNoII

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
signal_idYesSignal identifier used
rpmYesMachine speed (RPM)
bearing_idNoBearing used (if any)
machine_classYesMachine class for ISO severity
fft_summaryYesFFT key findings
psd_summaryYesPSD key findings
stft_summaryYesSTFT key findings
bearing_faultsNoBearing fault results
iso_severityYesISO severity assessment
anomaly_detectionNoAnomaly detection results (health, ratio, score)
overall_diagnosisYesCombined diagnostic text
confidenceYesOverall confidence: high, moderate, or low
recommendationsYesRecommended actions
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool loads a signal, runs multiple analyses, and synthesizes a report. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it modifies data), permissions, rate limits, or the format of the report. This is adequate but minimal for a complex tool.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is two paragraphs: a clear one-line summary followed by a docstring-style paragraph that repeats some information (e.g., 'loads signal from repository'). It is not overly long but could be more concise by removing the docstring repetition. The front-loaded summary is good.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity (4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, many sibling tools, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not describe the output schema (though an output schema exists), does not specify allowed parameter values or constraints, and does not guide the agent on when to choose this tool over individual analysis tools. More details are needed for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains signal_id, rpm, bearing_id (optional), and machine_class (default 'II'). However, it lacks specifics: valid values for machine_class (ISO classes), how bearing_id is used, and constraints on rpm. The description provides a basic understanding but not enough to use parameters confidently without external knowledge.

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 it performs a full integrated diagnosis including FFT, PSD, STFT, bearing faults, and ISO severity, and synthesizes into an actionable report. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle individual analyses (e.g., analyze_fft, compute_power_spectral_density). The verb 'diagnose' and scope 'full integrated diagnosis' are specific and unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when a comprehensive vibration diagnosis is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., analyze_fft for a single analysis). There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not to use, or references to sibling tools. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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/LGDiMaggio/predictive-maintenance-mcp'

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