mcp-sing

by luizrodrigues034

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

lock_profile

Locks a calibrated master and toolpath using SHA-256, creating an immutable record and rejecting uncalibrated profiles.

Instructions

Congela mestre+toolpath calibrado+calibração+firmware, SHA-256, grava imutável. Recusa não-calibrado.

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": {
      "signature_id": "<signature_id>",
      "client": "<client>"
    },
    "name": "lock_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`client`	Yes
`version`	No	v1
`git_commit`	No
`signature_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.1Jul 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It mentions SHA-256 hashing, immutable writes, and a refusal mechanism for uncalibrated states. While these are important, it lacks details on destructiveness, return values, or error conditions.

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?

The description is very short and to the point, using concise phrases. It is front-loaded with the core action and conditions, though it could be more structured for clarity.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks crucial context such as return values, side effects, and parameter purposes. It fails to compensate for the missing structural details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has four parameters but zero descriptions. The tool description does not mention any parameters or their roles, so it adds no meaning beyond the basic schema information (names, types, defaults).

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 locks (freezes) a profile including master, toolpath, calibration, and firmware, using SHA-256 and writing immutably. It effectively communicates the primary action and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like 'load_profile' which likely loads rather than locks.

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 notes that it refuses uncalibrated states, implying a precondition. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'load_profile' or 'compile_calibrated', leaving the usage context somewhat implied.

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