Detect anomalies in series data with EWMA and warn/critical z-score thresholds for printer telemetry diagnostics.
Detecta anomalías en serie con EWMA.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| alpha | No | ||
| values | Yes | ||
| z_crit | No | ||
| z_warn | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about what constitutes an anomaly, how z_warn vs z_crit are surfaced, whether the operation is read-only, or the shape of the result. Naming EWMA is the only behavioral hint, leaving the agent to guess at thresholds and output semantics.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but it is terse to the point of under-specification for a four-parameter analytical tool, so conciseness here comes at the cost of completeness.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not strictly required, but for a four-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations the description is far too thin. It gives no indication of input format, threshold semantics, or safety profile.
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% across four parameters, and the description does not compensate. It hints at EWMA smoothing (relevant to 'alpha') but says nothing about 'values', 'z_crit', or 'z_warn' and their roles.
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 states a specific action (detect anomalies) and even names the method (EWMA), which is more than a bare tautology. However, 'en serie' is vague about the expected input format, and there is no differentiation from any sibling tool (though the sibling list suggests this tool is functionally distinct from the Klipper/config tools).
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer context entirely from the name and the word 'EWMA'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.