Meticulous Espresso MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as list_profiles vs get_all_profiles vs get_profile, and get_shot_history vs search_history. The descriptions clarify the distinctions, but the sheer number of similar read operations could still cause misselection.
Naming Consistency3/5
Tool names mostly follow a verb_noun pattern, but the verbs are inconsistent across similar actions (e.g., list_profiles vs get_all_profiles, read_diary vs get_shot_history). While not chaotic, the mix of get, list, search, read, and append deviates from a predictable convention.
Tool Count2/5
With 28 tools, the server exceeds the typical well-scoped range. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., merging list_profiles and get_all_profiles, or combining get_current_shot and get_last_shot into a single parameterized tool), making the set feel overcrowded.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the major workflows: device control, settings, profile CRUD, shot history, grinder context, and diary. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to fetch a specific shot by ID or clear diary entries, but these are not critical to the core functionality.
Average 3.9/5 across 28 of 28 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'full details' but does not specify the response structure, error behavior, or whether it is a read-only operation beyond the verb 'get'. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail; it earns its place.
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?
For a simple read tool with one fully described parameter, the description is adequate in isolation. However, the lack of usage guidelines and return format details, combined with the large number of sibling tools, makes it incomplete for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool 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?
The schema already provides a description for profile_id ('UUID of the profile to retrieve') with 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'UUID' adds little beyond what the schema already states, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('profile') with the identifier type ('UUID'), which distinguishes it from list-level tools like get_all_profiles. However, it does not differentiate from similar single-profile tools like load_profile_by_id or load_profile.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as load_profile_by_id, get_profile_by_uuid, or get_all_profiles. The description lacks any contextual cues for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, potential response size implications, or any other behavioral traits beyond the obvious search intent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary filler.
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 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage guidance, behavioral details, and any indication of what the response contains or how to handle large result sets.
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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description's 'All parameters are optional' is redundant with the schema's required list. No additional semantic meaning is provided beyond what the schema already offers.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search shot history with flexible filters' clearly identifies the tool as a filtered search over shot history, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from potentially similar tools like get_shot_history by emphasizing flexible filters, but does not explicitly reference sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_shot_history or search_historical_profiles. The statement 'All parameters are optional' is a factual note, not usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'activate' without explaining side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens on success or failure. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely changes the current state of the machine.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and key constraint. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary information.
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?
Although the tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, the description lacks critical context for an agent: what 'activate' means operationally, whether it is safe or destructive, and how it differs from 'load_profile'. This incompleteness could lead to incorrect 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?
The input schema already provides full coverage (100%) with a clear description of the single parameter 'profile_id' as the UUID to activate. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'activates an existing profile' by its UUID, providing a specific verb and resource. It also adds the constraint that the profile must already be saved, which clarifies its scope and distinguishes it from creation tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'load_profile', so it falls short of a perfect score.
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 by stating the profile must already be saved on the machine, which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the guidance implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It names the types of notifications but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how the 'acknowledged' parameter affects results, the return format, or any side effects. The 'get' verb implies read-only, but this is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the core action and resource while providing illustrative examples in parentheses.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details about the response structure and filtering behavior. It does not explain what fields each notification contains or how the 'acknowledged' parameter is meant to be used, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
The schema includes a single parameter with a complete description (100% coverage). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it remains at the baseline for well-documented schemas.
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 action ('Get') and the resource ('machine notifications'), with explicit examples of notification types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_device_info or get_settings, which target different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites, exclusions, or context given. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be chosen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action ('Delete') but does not mention irreversibility, whether the deletion is permanent, any cascading effects, or what happens to dependent data. The minimal wording fails to add context beyond the word 'Delete'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that directly states the action and target. There is no filler or redundant phrasing, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not clarify whether the deletion is reversible, if there are any prerequisites (e.g., profile must exist), or what the return value looks like. Given the low complexity, a slightly more detailed description would be expected, so a 3 is appropriate.
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% because the only parameter 'profile_id' has a clear description: 'UUID of the profile to delete'. The tool description also mentions 'by UUID', which reinforces but does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when schema covers all parameters.
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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('profile from the machine's internal storage'), and mentions the key identifier ('by UUID'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_profile' or 'get_profile', which perform different actions on the same resource.
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 the intent is to remove a profile, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusion conditions. The context is clear but lacks direct guidance on alternatives, which keeps it at a mid-level score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state 'metadata only', which clarifies the return type, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated, ordered, or limited, or any authentication needs. This is only a partial disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a concise list of output fields. Every word adds value, with no redundant filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple listing, but it lacks details on scope (all history vs. a subset), ordering, pagination, or the full return structure. Since there is no output schema, the field list helps but isn't fully complete.
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?
The input schema has no properties, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description naturally does not need to explain parameters, and it doesn't mention any.
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 identifies the tool as retrieving a listing of past espresso shots, specifying 'metadata only' and the exact fields shown (name, time, profile, rating). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_current_shot, get_last_shot, and get_shot_statistics, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of related siblings such as search_history or get_shot_statistics. There is no mention of contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format (array of profile identifiers with names and IDs) and scopes to 'currently stored', providing moderate transparency about read-only behavior. However, it doesn't mention potential performance implications or whether it includes default profiles.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the action. The description is efficient with no redundancy.
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?
For a zero-parameter listing tool, the description covers purpose and return format. However, it leaves ambiguity about how this differs from similar sibling tools (get_all_profiles), which affects completeness.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter details; it adds return value semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all espresso profiles stored on the machine, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling 'get_all_profiles' or 'get_profile', which may cause confusion about which to use.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_all_profiles or get_profile. The description implies it's for listing all stored profiles but lacks explicit exclusions or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search action and a use case, but doesn't disclose whether it is a read-only operation, what the result format looks like, or any ordering/pagination behavior. The verb 'Search' implies read-only, but it's not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple search tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should explain return value expectations, but it doesn't mention whether results are a list, sorted, or how many historical versions are returned. The tool is simple though, and the description covers the basic purpose and a usage scenario, so it's minimally complete but with clear gaps.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage of the single parameter 'query', with a clear description ('Profile name or partial name to search for'). The description adds only 'by name', which reinforces the schema but adds no extra semantic detail, so 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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), specifies the resource ('historical versions of profiles'), and narrows the scope ('by name'). It also mentions a concrete use case ('finding old recipe iterations'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like search_history or list_profiles.
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 phrase 'Useful for finding old recipe iterations' gives a clear use case, but the description does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when another tool (e.g., search_history) might be more appropriate. It implies usage context but lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the default compact output with a sampled trace to manage chat context limits, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, potential errors, or what else happens internally.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose and a key default. It is concise with no wasted words.
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?
The description explains the default output mode and rationale, which covers the essential operational context. Since the schema covers all parameters and there is no output schema, the description does not need to detail return fields, but it could mention what 'compact' includes beyond 'sampled trace'. Overall, it is sufficient for a simple fetch tool with optional parameters.
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?
All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The default values for verbosity and max_points are already documented, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Fetch shot data and profile for analysis' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It adds scope by mentioning 'for analysis' and defaults to compact output. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_shot_history or get_current_shot, which also fetch shot data.
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 word 'analysis' implies the intended use case, but no explicit guidance is given about when to prefer this over alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or specific scenarios, relying mostly on the tool name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool appends to a diary, which implies mutation, but does not disclose whether entries are permanent, whether there are any side effects, authentication requirements, or if the operation is idempotent. The phrase 'append a new entry' gives basic information but lacks depth compared to mutating tools with clear consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently conveys purpose, usage timing, and a formatting guideline without redundancy.
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?
For a simple append operation with one well-documented parameter, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states when to call the tool and what content to include. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits any mention of return values or error handling, though these may be less critical for such a straightforward operation.
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%, and the schema itself provides a detailed Markdown template for the 'entry' parameter. The description adds a stylistic hint ('matching the diary style') and lists example data fields, but these are already covered by the schema. The description provides minimal additional value beyond the structured parameter definition, so a baseline score of 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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: "Append a new entry to the espresso shot diary." It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_diary by indicating a write operation, and further clarifies its scope with 'after each shot'.
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 provides clear usage context: "Call this after each shot to log tasting notes, grinder setting, yield, and observations." It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to know when to invoke it. A missing explicit alternative such as 'use read_diary to view entries' prevents a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the default output behavior (compact summary) and rationale (avoid token overflow), which is valuable. However, it does not mention what happens when there are no shots or what 'full' verbosity entails beyond 'raw shot payload' in the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that immediately states the purpose and a key default behavior. No filler or redundancy. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.
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?
For a simple getter with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It explains purpose and default behavior. It could have explicitly contrasted with get_current_shot to reduce ambiguity, but given the sibling names, the word 'completed' already conveys the distinction.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds a small extra layer by explaining why the summary default exists (token overflow), but it does not add semantic detail for max_points beyond what the schema provides.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get the most recently completed shot.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_current_shot (which implies an in-progress shot) and get_shot_history (which is a list). The word 'completed' adds important scope.
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 for retrieving the latest finished shot, and mentions the default summary to avoid token overflow, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the distinction from get_current_shot implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a save (write) operation and persistence ('so Claude remembers it next session'), but it does not disclose potential side effects such as overwriting existing context, behavior if the profile doesn't exist, or any preconditions. This lack of transparency is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences, both of which earn their place: the first states the core action and the second provides the key usage trigger. It is front-loaded and free of filler or redundancy.
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?
For a simple tool with a fully described schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage context. The lack of output schema means no return documentation is needed. However, the description is somewhat thin on edge cases (e.g., overwrite semantics), which keeps it from a perfect score despite the low complexity.
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 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds negligible meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'grinder model and setting' which simply mirrors the parameter names and schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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's function: 'Save the grinder model and setting for a profile' with a specific verb (save) and resource (grinder model/setting for profile). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_grinder_context by emphasizing the save action, and from other save/update tools by focusing on grinder context specifically.
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 provides an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Call this whenever you change your grind size so Claude remembers it next session.' This gives clear context for the tool's intended usage, but it does not mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives such as save_profile or update_setting.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description explains the immediate effect of each action (e.g., 'stop' aborts shot, 'reset' resets machine state), but it does not disclose deeper behavioral traits such as reversibility, prerequisites, failure modes, or side effects. It goes beyond a bare list but lacks full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first establishes the core purpose, and the second concisely enumerates the actions with their meanings. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately covers the action semantics for a simple single-parameter tool, but it lacks preconditions, return value expectations, or safety notes. Since there are no annotations or output schema, the description probably should provide more context about what happens after execution or any requirements.
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?
The schema already covers the parameter with 100% description coverage, but the schema only provides a generic description ('The action to execute on the machine') and enum values without explanation. The tool description adds meaning to each enum value, clarifying what each action does, which is valuable enrichment.
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 'Send a control action to the machine' with a specific verb and resource, and the enumerated actions distinguish it from sibling getter/setter tools. It is not a tautology and provides a distinct purpose.
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 through the action list (e.g., 'start' to begin a shot), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No alternative tools are referenced, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains that the data is saved and used for session recall, which adds context. However, it doesn't explicitly confirm read-only behavior or describe return format beyond 'model and setting.'
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by a single usage directive. No filler.
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?
For a simple getter with minimal parameters, the description adequately covers what it returns, scope, and usage timing. The lack of output schema means a bit more detail on the response structure would be helpful, but the description is sufficient for a basic tool.
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?
The schema fully describes the single optional profile_name parameter. The description echoes this with 'one or all profiles' but adds no new semantics 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 retrieves grinder model and settings, with scope one or all profiles. This distinguishes it from sibling profile tools like get_profile or get_settings by specifying the grinder context specifically.
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?
Provides explicit timing guidance: 'Call this at the start of a session to recall where you left off.' It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states 'Read' which implies a non-destructive operation, but it doesn't disclose what happens for invalid setting keys, whether it returns all settings if no filter is given, or any other behavioral details beyond the basic read/filter behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and the optional filter. No wasted words; every element contributes directly to understanding.
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?
For a simple, optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it states the resource, the action, and the one capability (filtering). It doesn't specify the return format, but that's not critical for such a straightforward tool.
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?
The schema already covers 100% of the parameter (setting_name) with a description and examples. The tool description adds some broad example categories (auto-preheat, sounds, timezone) but doesn't substantially go beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline for high schema coverage is 3.
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's purpose: 'Read the current machine settings' with a specific verb and resource. It lists concrete setting categories (auto-preheat, enable_sounds, etc.) and distinguishes from siblings like update_setting by framing it as a read operation.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (when you need to read current machine settings) and mentions optional filtering. Though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, the 'Read' verb implies this is for viewing, not modifying, settings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval operation, but does not disclose any behavioral nuances like time ranges, data source, or whether counts are limited to current profiles. The description is acceptable but shallow.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and lists all key outputs. No redundant words or filler.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the essential context by naming the three aggregate statistics. It is sufficient for basic use, though it could clarify whether the statistics are global or scoped to a particular profile set.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema covers 100% of what would otherwise be needed. The description adds meaning by listing exactly which statistics the tool returns, which serves as implicit output semantics.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'aggregate statistics', and lists specific outputs (total shots, shots per profile, profile version counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_shot_history which fetch individual records.
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 use for aggregate statistics, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_history or get_shot_data_for_analysis. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of disclosing behavioral traits. It does disclose a key behavior: setting a rating to null removes an existing rating. However, it does not mention other important aspects like whether ratings are overwritten, what happens if the shot does not exist, or any permission requirements. This gap prevents a higher score, but the core mutation behavior is partially addressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence immediately states the action, values, and the null behavior; the second gives a practical hint for obtaining the key. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or filler.
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's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, allowed inputs, and where to get the key. It does not mention return values or error handling, but for a straightforward rating action this is acceptable. A small gap is the lack of clarification on overwriting behavior when the shot already has a rating, which keeps it from a 5.
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% per context signals, with both parameters fully described in the input schema. The description adds a minor hint ('Use db_key from shot history') but does not provide significant additional semantics beyond the schema. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
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's purpose: 'Rate a completed shot as like, dislike, or null (remove rating).' It specifies the exact action (rate) and resource (completed shot), and the allowed values distinguish it from sibling tools that perform other actions like listing or retrieving shots. The reference to 'db_key from shot history' further clarifies the target resource.
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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: on completed shots, and instructs to use the db_key from shot history. It implicitly distinguishes from tools that retrieve or modify shooting data, and no explicit alternative is needed since no other sibling handles rating. The note about 'completed shot' offers a usage guideline, though it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, hence a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the return fields, which is useful, but does not mention any side effects, error conditions, or potential latency. The behavior is straightforward and read-only, so a score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that lists the key output fields without extraneous information. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.
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?
The tool has no parameters and no output schema, so the description's explicit enumeration of returned fields makes it self-contained. It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what information will be retrieved.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description need not explain parameters, and it accurately describes what the returned data contains, which covers the information a user would expect for such a tool.
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 retrieves hardware info about the Meticulous machine, enumerating specific fields (firmware version, model, serial number, software version, current status). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_settings or get_profile.
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 hardware information is needed, but does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or alternatives. For a read-only no-parameter tool, this is acceptable 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.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Get') and specifies the return content (profile and load time), which is transparent for a zero-parameter getter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and result. There is no filler or redundant wording.
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?
For a tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what it does and what it returns. No essential information is missing for a straightforward getter.
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?
The tool has no parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter information since none exist.
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 retrieves the most recently loaded (active) profile and includes the last-loaded time, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_profile, get_all_profiles, and get_default_profiles.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The intended use is implied by the description, but there is no mention of exclusions or references to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the null return and the default compact summary to avoid huge responses, giving useful operational expectations. It could add more about response structure but covers the key behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by a relevant behavioral detail. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, null behavior, and default output mode. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool, though it could elaborate on what the summary contains.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no explicit parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema, though it hints at the 'compact summary' concept which relates to verbosity.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('shot currently being brewed'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_last_shot and get_shot_history. It also adds a useful condition: returns null if no shot is in progress.
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 makes it clear when to use this tool (when you want the in-progress shot) and explicitly notes the null return for the no-shot case. It does not name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient given the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies the source of profiles ('built-in factory and community profiles that ship with the machine'), which adds context, but it doesn't describe return format, read-only nature, or any potential side effects. For a simple getter, this is minimally adequate but lacks richer detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds a practical use case. Every word earns its place, and the content is front-loaded with the action and resource. No filler or redundancy.
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?
With zero parameters and no annotations, the description must stand alone. It conveys what is returned (default profiles), and the use case ('starting points for recipe creation') helps the agent decide when to invoke it. While it doesn't explicitly state the return structure, the tool name and siblings give enough context for this simple getter.
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?
The input schema has zero properties, and the instruction baseline for 0 parameters is 4. Since there are no parameters to describe, the description doesn't need to add parameter-specific detail. The description correctly focuses on the resource being fetched.
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 retrieves 'built-in factory profiles and community profiles that ship with the machine,' using the specific verb 'Get' and a clear resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_all_profiles or get_profile by specifying that it returns only default/built-in profiles.
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 explains that these profiles are 'good starting points for recipe creation or modification,' giving a clear use case. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the context implies when this tool is appropriate compared to listing all profiles or fetching a specific profile.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation by using the verb 'Read' and explains the content returned (full diary with tasting notes and dial-in history). While it doesn't detail output format or performance, the simple nature of the tool and explicit 'read' make behavior transparent enough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does, and the second adds actionable context (when to call it and what it provides). Information is front-loaded and efficiently delivered.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the action, timing, and content of the result. Given the low complexity, nothing critical is missing.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the empty schema. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description focuses on purpose rather than parameter details, which are unnecessary here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Read the full espresso shot diary') and explains what it provides ('past shots, tasting notes, and dial-in history'). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_shot_history or search_history, but the 'full diary' phrasing implies a broader scope, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.
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 clearly tells when to use it ('Call this at the start of a session') and why ('to recall past shots, tasting notes, and dial-in history'). It doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is specific and helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the update mutation and partial merge semantics, and lists acceptable keys, but does not state return values, validation/error behavior, side effects, or required permissions. It's not misleading, just incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact: a clear action sentence, a usage instruction, and a key list. No filler words; a necessary length given the number of keys.
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?
For a settings update tool with no annotations/output schema, the description covers the input semantics well and is likely sufficient, though it omits return value and any interaction notes with sibling tools. It's almost complete but not fully.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only provides a single example for the 'settings' object, while the description enumerates all available keys with their types and explains the partial-update pattern. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema, which is otherwise thin.
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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Update one or more machine settings') and clarifies the partial-object behavior. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_settings and update_profile by naming the resource (machine settings) and listing valid keys.
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?
It gives clear context on how to invoke: pass a partial Settings object with only the keys to change. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or alternative tools (e.g., update_profile), so it falls short of 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the fetch-merge-save flow, preservation of profile image, and duplicate avoidance, providing valuable behavioral context beyond a simple 'update' statement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no redundant content. The second sentence adds crucial usage guidance without bloat.
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?
The description covers the essential update workflow and preservation behaviors, making it suitable for an update tool. It lacks explicit return value details or error handling, but those are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the existing schema coverage.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the merge behavior and confirming that only updated fields are needed, reinforcing and extending the schema's parameter descriptions.
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 updates an existing profile in place by ID, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like save_profile or delete_profile by describing the merge-on-top behavior.
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 implies usage for partial updates and explains that passing only changed fields preserves the rest. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or contrast with save_profile, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the behavior: returns a list of errors if invalid, and with auto_fix=true, automatically fills specific simple missing fields (id, author_id, version, previous_authors, variables) while leaving structural errors for manual correction. This gives concrete insight into what auto_fix does and does not do. It does not mention side effects like persistence, but the 'returns the repaired profile' phrasing implies no saving occurs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence efficiently explains the auto_fix behavior and its limits. No fluff or repetition; every clause adds meaningful information.
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 two parameters and nested recipe object, the description covers the essential behavior: validation outcome (errors list) and auto_fix's effect (repaired profile). There is no output schema, so describing return types is necessary and adequately done. Minor omission: it doesn't state what happens when validation succeeds without auto_fix (presumably an empty list), but this is a minor gap in an otherwise complete description.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating exactly which fields auto_fix fills ('id, author_id, version, previous_authors, variables') and clarifying that structural errors are not auto-fixed. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'simple missing fields' description, providing actionable semantic detail.
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 opens with 'Validate a recipe JSON against the Meticulous profile schema' – a specific verb (validate) and resource (recipe JSON) that clearly defines the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes itself from the many sibling CRUD/profile tools by focusing on validation rather than retrieval or mutation.
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 implies when to use this tool: for validating a recipe against a schema. It makes clear that auto_fix handles only simple missing fields and that structural errors require manual correction, providing context for when to rely on auto_fix versus manual fixing. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the distinct validation role makes the usage context unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Fetch'), scope (all profiles on the machine), and content returned (all stages, dynamics, triggers). It lacks explicit mention of side effects or constraints, but for a read operation this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second provides the primary use case. No redundant information or fluff, making it efficient and well-structured.
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 the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns ('full details' with enumerated fields). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?
The tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific info, but none is needed as the schema is empty. The description focuses on the tool's behavior rather than parameters.
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 fetches all profiles with full details, using specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'all profiles'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_profile (single) and list_profiles (likely summaries) by emphasizing 'full details (all stages, dynamics, triggers)'.
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?
It provides a clear usage context: 'Use this when you need to inspect or compare complete recipes.' This helps the agent decide when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the operation is a permanent write, that schema validation occurs, and details the required structure. However, it does not mention whether saving could overwrite an existing profile, auth requirements, or return value on success/failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the purpose, then validation behavior, then a well-organized schema breakdown. Every sentence provides necessary detail and no filler is present.
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?
The description fully compensates for the sparse schema by enumerating the entire required JSON structure, which is essential for a complex nested input. It lacks explicit return/error information, but for a save operation this is less critical. Overall, it is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only says 'Full profile JSON object' with no internal structure, but the description adds an exhaustive list of required fields, types, nested stage structure, and constraints such as the last stage's exit condition. This greatly enriches 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 action: 'Permanently save a profile to the machine's internal storage.' It uses a specific verb 'save' and resource 'profile', and is easily distinguished from sibling tools like load_profile, update_profile, and delete_profile.
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 provides clear context: the tool writes a profile permanently. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with update_profile, but the permanent-save framing implies creation rather than modification. Sibling names help infer alternatives, so context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that it validates the schema before sending and specifies the exact profile structure, which implies acceptance criteria. However, it does not mention error handling, return values, or side effects beyond setting the active recipe, leaving some behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the purpose and key alternative, followed by a structured breakdown of profile and stage requirements. Every sentence contributes critical specification, with no filler or redundancy, making it appropriately sized for the complex input it documents.
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?
With no output schema and a single complex nested parameter, the description provides nearly complete input specification and notes validation behavior. It omits information about the response format or error handling, but given the depth of the parameter details, it is largely complete for the agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema merely describes 'profile' as 'Full profile JSON object', but the description meticulously enumerates all required fields, types, formats (e.g., UUID v4, version: 1), and constraints like the final stage exiting on weight. This adds immense meaning beyond the schema, making it easy for the agent to construct a valid input.
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 starts with 'Load a profile JSON onto the machine as the active recipe (temporary — use save_profile to persist)', using a specific verb (load) and resource (profile JSON) while clearly distinguishing it from persistence-focused siblings. It also states the validation behavior, leaving no ambiguity about its function.
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?
It explicitly says 'temporary — use save_profile to persist', providing a clear alternative and when-not-to-use (if persistence is needed). This gives the agent a decisive guideline for tool selection among siblings like save_profile and load_profile_by_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![meticulous-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/erdos2n/meticulous-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/erdos2n/meticulous-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![meticulous-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/erdos2n/meticulous-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/erdos2n/meticulous-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/erdos2n/meticulous-mcp-server'

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