Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-sing

mcp-sing

by luizrodrigues034
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

device_connect

Connect to a NextDraw plotter to reproduce handwritten signatures. Use 'mock' kind for test runs without physical plotter movement.

Instructions

Conecta a plotter. kind: 'nextdraw' (real, PC do operador) | 'mock' (teste, não move).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "device_connect"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNomock

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that mock doesn't move, but missing details on side effects (e.g., disconnection of previous connection), error behavior, or required states. Minimal transparency.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Very concise (two fragments), front-loading the verb and resource. Could be slightly more structured but no wasted words.

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?

Adequate for a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. Covers basic behavior, but lacks return value info and error handling. Enough to use but could be improved.

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 only parameter 'kind' is fully explained, listing the two allowed values and their meanings. Since schema has 0% description coverage, this adds value beyond the schema.

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 connects to a plotter and distinguishes two connection kinds (nextdraw and mock). This verb+resource structure is specific enough, though it does not explicitly differentiate from 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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. With many sibling tools for motion and calibration, the description lacks context on prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools