Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-sing

mcp-sing

by luizrodrigues034
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

test_plot

Plots a calibrated signature toolpath on A4 draft paper to test signature reproduction, requiring a signature ID and confirmation token.

Instructions

[MOVE] Plota o toolpath calibrado em A4 rascunho (job background). arm_motion('test_plot',{signature_id})+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": {
      "signature_id": "<signature_id>",
      "confirm_token": "<confirm_token>"
    },
    "name": "test_plot"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
signature_idYes
confirm_tokenYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must convey behavior. It mentions 'MOVE' and 'job background' but doesn't disclose effects (e.g., if it overwrites, requires calibration, or any side effects). The token suggests a confirmation step but not detailed.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single sentence but not concise—it's cryptic and includes code-like fragments. It could be more structured and front-loaded with a clear action statement.

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 tool with 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It doesn't explain prerequisites (e.g., calibration needed), return values, or the confirmation token's role. Sibling tools suggest this is part of a setup workflow, but no context is provided.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only hints at signature_id and token but does not explain their purpose or constraints. The token part is obscure (arm_motion(...)+token). No added meaning beyond the parameter titles.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description mentions 'Plota o toolpath calibrado' (plot calibrated toolpath) but is written in Portuguese and unclear. It references arm_motion but doesn't clearly state what the tool does in English. The verb 'plot' gives a hint, but the resource and scope are ambiguous.

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 versus siblings like arm_motion or calibrate_pen_paper. The description assumes context (e.g., job background) but doesn't provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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