Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-sing

mcp-sing

by luizrodrigues034
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

jog

Move a pen plotter arm by dx, dy millimeters with token-based confirmation for secure, precise positioning.

Instructions

[MOVE] Desloca dx,dy mm. Exige arm_motion('jog', {dx,dy}) + token.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "dx": "<dx>",
      "dy": "<dy>",
      "confirm_token": "<confirm_token>"
    },
    "name": "jog"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dxYes
dyYes
confirm_tokenYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that a confirm_token is required and that arm_motion must be called first. However, it does not describe side effects, error states, or whether the operation is safe/reversible, leaving gaps in 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 extremely concise with no filler words. The '[MOVE]' tag provides quick categorization. Every sentence is essential, making it easy to parse.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a physical movement tool. It omits details on coordinate system, error handling, token validity, and expected behavior, which are critical for safe use.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It states units (mm) for dx and dy, and notes the confirm_token requirement. However, it does not explain the coordinate system (e.g., relative vs absolute) or how to obtain the token, which would add significant value.

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 that the tool moves by dx, dy in mm, as indicated by '[MOVE] Desloca dx,dy mm'. The verb 'Desloca' (move) and resource (mm increments) are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'arm_motion' or 'home_device', leaving some ambiguity.

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?

The description implies a prerequisite (calling arm_motion('jog', ...) to obtain a token) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any exclusions or context about typical use cases.

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