RAPT.io MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resources, but get_bonded_device_telemetry overlaps with resource-specific telemetry endpoints, and get_bonded_device vs get_fermentation_chamber could confuse agents unfamiliar with the domain. Descriptions mostly clarify these boundaries.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_* for reads, set_* for writes, and plural forms for list operations. This makes the API highly predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count4/5
With 23 tools, the server is slightly heavy, but the count is justified by the breadth of resources (devices, chambers, hydrometers, profiles) and the granular control offered for fermentation chambers. No redundant tools exist.
Completeness3/5
The server covers monitoring and direct control well, but lacks profile management (create/update/delete) and the ability to assign or start a profile on a chamber. These are notable gaps for a fermentation control system, though core read/control workflows are present.
Average 3.7/5 across 23 of 23 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
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?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get telemetry data' which implies a read operation but does not confirm read-only nature, mention required permissions, rate limits, or describe the return format. The description adds no context beyond the tool's name.
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 (7 words) with the verb first and no extraneous information. It is extremely concise and well-structured.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should provide context about return values and usage. It only says 'telemetry data' without explaining what data is returned or any time-range behavior, leaving significant gaps for a tool with three 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (device_id, start_date, end_date), providing format and example details. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-related meaning, 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'telemetry data for a bonded device', which is specific enough to identify its function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_bonded_device (device info) and get_fermentation_chamber_telemetry (different resource), though it does not explicitly elaborate on what 'telemetry data' includes.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only restates the function without mentioning prerequisites, exclusions, or why to choose it over sibling telemetry tools. This matches the 'no guidance' level.
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 must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions the action and states. It does not explain the meaning of 'Auto', whether the operation is reversible, if any prerequisites (e.g., chamber existence) apply, or what side effects may occur. This is minimal 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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly conveys the tool's purpose and the key parameter values, making it concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It does not state when to use it (e.g., during active fermentation), what 'Auto' implies, or any error conditions. Since the tool is a simple setter, this level is acceptable but leaves some 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., states are already defined in the enum). It does not clarify any nuances about chamber_id or state 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 states the action ('Control') and the target resource ('light of a fermentation chamber'), with the allowed states (On, Off, Auto). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like set_fermentation_chamber_temperature by focusing on light control. However, 'Control' is slightly less specific than verbs like 'Set' or 'Turn', so it loses a point.
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 set_fermentation_chamber_heating_enabled or set_fermentation_chamber_pid_enabled. The description simply states its function without contextual cues or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from sibling names.
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 burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Set' and the valid range, but does not mention effects on the fermentation chamber, whether the change takes effect immediately, or any implications for temperature control. This is minimal disclosure for a mutating operation.
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, 12 words, and front-loaded with the core action and object. It includes the valid range without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple setter 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?
For a simple setter with only two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and value range. However, it lacks any context about alternative tools or system effects, and with no annotations, the description alone is not fully complete. It is minimally viable but could be enhanced with a note about when to use this versus cooling hysteresis.
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 describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the term '(deadband)' and the valid range '0.1–10', but these largely repeat information already in the schema's property descriptions (e.g., 'Heating hysteresis value (0.1–10)' for the value parameter). Thus, it adds no substantial new meaning.
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: 'Set the heating hysteresis (deadband) for a fermentation chamber.' It uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('heating hysteresis for a fermentation chamber'), and the term 'heating' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'set_fermentation_chamber_cooling_hysteresis'.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to adjust heating hysteresis as opposed to cooling hysteresis or other chamber settings. It only gives a valid range, which is more about parameters than usage 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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that parameters are configured, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether PID must be enabled separately, whether changing gains immediately affects control, or whether prerequisites exist). This is a mutation tool with no safety annotation, so the description is insufficiently transparent.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the verb and object efficiently without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it omits some contextual details that would improve usefulness. Not perfectly complete, but concise.
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 presence of many sibling tools and no annotations, the description lacks essential context for an agent to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not explain when to set PID parameters relative to enabling PID, what the expected outcome is, or whether any related settings are affected. The schema covers parameters, but the description does not compensate for the lack of behavioral or usage context, leaving 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a clear definition. The description adds the expansion of the PID acronym ('proportional, integral, derivative'), which helps map the acronym to the parameter names, but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 ('Configure') and clearly identifies the resource ('PID parameters for a fermentation chamber's temperature controller'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_fermentation_chamber_temperature or set_fermentation_chamber_pid_enabled. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.
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 PID parameters need to be configured, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. For example, it does not mention that this does not enable PID (that is a separate tool) or whether it should be used before or after enabling. Context is clear but lacks exclusions or explicit guidance.
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. It only states the action, not side effects, return value, safety implications, or interaction with other settings like PID control. This is a minimal disclosure, insufficient for a control action.
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 front-loads the action and target, with no wasted words.
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?
The tool is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain at least the expected return and any side effects. It does neither. The description is incomplete for a control action affecting a physical system.
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 covers both parameters with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the purpose of the 'enabled' parameter. Baseline 3 applies.
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 action ('Enable or disable') on a specific resource ('heating element of a fermentation chamber'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that control other components like cooling, fan, or light.
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 makes the tool's purpose obvious, so usage is implied. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. For a simple setter among similar toggles, this is adequate but not 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the mutation action without detailing effects, prerequisites, or what happens when toggling cooling while the chamber is in operation. This is a minimal setter description with no extra behavioral context.
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 states the action and object clearly. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.
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?
Given the low complexity of the tool and full parameter schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks any context about side effects, whether the change is immediate, or how it interacts with other chamber controls. Without annotations, this feels incomplete for a mutation 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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (chamber_id as UUID, enabled as boolean). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (enable or disable) and the specific resource (cooling/compressor of a fermentation chamber). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like set_fermentation_chamber_heating_enabled or set_fermentation_chamber_fan_enabled by naming the exact component.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, but the specific scope of the tool makes its usage obvious from context. The description implies this is the setter for cooling enablement, not for temperature or other chamber settings.
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 full responsibility for explaining behavior. It only states the action (enable/disable fan) without disclosing side effects, whether the chamber must exist, if the change is reversible, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap, similar to the 'update_drive' example.
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 clear sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It conveys the action precisely and efficiently.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (two required parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior but lacks usage guidance and any behavioral context beyond the boolean toggle. With no annotations to supplement, this is only minimally complete for a control action.
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 fully documents both parameters (chamber_id and enabled) with descriptions, covering 100% of parameters. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb (enable/disable) and resource (fan of a fermentation chamber), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that control temperature, heating, cooling, or light. The purpose is immediately obvious.
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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool—when you need to turn the fermentation chamber fan on or off—but provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention, for instance, that other tools handle heating/cooling, so usage is implied rather than clearly contrasted with siblings.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the value uses the device-configured unit, but does not disclose other traits such as whether the change is immediate, if any confirmation or error feedback is returned, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
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 conveys the purpose and key unit detail without any waste. Every word 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out important contextual information such as what the tool returns (success/error), whether the setting persists, or any prerequisites (e.g., chamber must be bonded). The unit detail is helpful, but overall the description is incomplete for a setter 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both chamber_id and target have descriptions). The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema—it merely restates the unit information already present in the target parameter description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters well.
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 'Set the target temperature for a fermentation chamber' with a specific verb (set) and resource (target temperature), which distinguishes it from siblings like set_fermentation_chamber_pid or set_fermentation_chamber_light_enabled. It also adds relevant unit context.
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 that this tool is for setting the target temperature, making its usage obvious among sibling setters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it lacks exclusions but is not misleading.
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 discloses the content of the response (temperature, run times, profile progress) but doesn't describe return format, pagination, date-range behavior, or potential empty results. This is a minimal 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and no redundancy. Every element contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
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?
Given there's no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover more of the tool's behavior. It lists the types of telemetry but omits the structure of the returned data, whether ranges are optional, and how profile_session_id affects results. It's adequate for simple use but not fully complete.
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 four parameters are documented in the schema with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds general context about what the data contains but doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema for individual 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 ('Get') and resource ('fermentation chamber') and clarifies scope as 'historical telemetry data' with concrete data types (temperature, run times, profile progress). This distinguishes it from siblings that get current chamber state or telemetry for other device types.
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 'historical telemetry' implies the tool is for retrieving past data, but it doesn't explicitly state when to choose it over get_fermentation_chamber or get_bonded_device_telemetry. Usage context is clear but alternatives are not named, so it's implied 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It simply states 'Set' and the valid range, but does not disclose any side effects, whether the change takes effect immediately, permissions required, or the result of invalid input. This adds little beyond what the schema already conveys, such as the 2–30 minute range.
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 that immediately state the action and the valid range. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no unnecessary 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?
For a simple two-parameter setter with no output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It explains what is set and the range, but does not explain the operational effect of the mode switch delay (e.g., preventing rapid cycling) or what happens after setting it. This leaves gaps for an agent trying to understand the tool's impact.
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 describes both parameters with 100% coverage: minutes has the range description and chamber_id is a UUID. The description repeats the range but does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. This aligns with the baseline of 3 given the 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 'Set the heating/cooling mode switch delay in minutes for a fermentation chamber,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling setters like set_fermentation_chamber_temperature and set_fermentation_chamber_compressor_delay by naming the exact setting.
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 the tool: when you need to adjust the mode switch delay of a fermentation chamber. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tool names make it obvious this is the dedicated setter for this parameter.
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 the state change but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., what happens when PID is disabled, or if there are any preconditions). The behavior is simple enough that the description is mostly sufficient, but it misses deeper context.
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 short sentence, entirely front-loaded, with no redundancy. Every word earns its place.
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 toggle, the description is minimal but lacking context about side effects or usage scenarios. Given the complexity is low and no output schema exists, it is adequate but could be improved by noting the relationship to PID configuration.
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 both parameters clearly described. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high 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 uses a specific verb pair (enable/disable) and identifies the resource (PID temperature control for a fermentation chamber). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like set_fermentation_chamber_pid which configures PID parameters.
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 provides clear context for the toggle action but does not explicitly state when to use this versus the related set_fermentation_chamber_pid tool, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It is adequate but not 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and the valid range, which duplicates the schema, and does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, persistence, or response behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
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 immediately clear, front-loaded with the action, and contains no fluff or redundant wording.
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 simplicity of the tool (two fully documented parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is largely sufficient. It clearly states the purpose and constraint, though it could benefit from a note about what the response looks like.
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 repeats the valid range for minutes but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already describes both 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 the specific action: 'Set the compressor restart delay in minutes for a fermentation chamber.' It uses a verb + resource + attribute, and the name and description distinguish it from sibling tools like set_fermentation_chamber_temperature or set_fermentation_chamber_pid.
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 the tool: whenever you need to set the compressor restart delay. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous and differentiated from siblings by the specific setting it modifies.
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 explains 'deadband' semantically, which adds slight context, but it does not disclose effects (e.g., whether the change applies immediately), permissions required, reversibility, or response behavior. The valid range is already in the schema, so it adds no extra behavioral 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant text. It immediately identifies the action and target, then states the valid range. 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?
The tool is simple (two scalar parameters) with complete schema coverage. The description, combined with the schema, provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It could be more complete by explaining the behavioral meaning of hysteresis (e.g., 'the difference between the target temperature and when cooling activates'), but this is a minor gap given the simplicity.
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 clear descriptions for both chamber_id and value. The tool description further clarifies the meaning of 'value' by calling it '(deadband)', which enhances understanding beyond the schema's 'Cooling hysteresis value (0.5–10)'. This adds semantic richness without being redundant.
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 ('Set') and the specific resource ('cooling hysteresis') for a 'fermentation chamber'. This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_fermentation_chamber_temperature or set_fermentation_chamber_heating_hysteresis. No ambiguity.
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 user needs to adjust the cooling deadband, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'when the cooling cycles too frequently'). It also doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions. The valid range is a constraint, not guidance on choosing between 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and 'all device types' clarifies scope, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, or the structure of the returned data. The description is adequate but minimal.
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 verb and resource, and every word earns its place. It is extremely concise with no 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?
For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but does not explain what a device entry includes (e.g., IDs, names, types). Given the absence of an output schema, a bit more detail about return values would improve 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, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter information to add, and the empty schema fully covers the parameter surface.
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: 'List all devices bonded to the RAPT account' with the scope 'all device types'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bonded_device (singular) and type-specific tools like get_fermentation_chambers or get_hydrometers.
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 'all device types' implicitly signals that this is the general listing tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_bonded_device or get_fermentation_chambers. Usage is implied rather than stated.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic list operation and lacks details about return format, read-only nature, pagination, or potential errors, leaving significant behavioral context undisclosed.
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 with no extraneous words, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description is somewhat adequate, but with no output schema or annotations, it should specify what the returned list contains (e.g., profile IDs, names) to fully prepare the agent. This missing detail lowers the score.
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 is empty (100% coverage). Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed.
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 lists all fermentation profiles in the RAPT account. The verb 'list' and resource 'fermentation profiles' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like get_profile (singular) and get_profile_types.
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 implies when to use this tool: when you need the full list of fermentation profiles in the account. It provides clear context, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.
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. The verb 'get' strongly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state side effects, error behavior (e.g., what happens if the UUID is not found), or any permissions needed. This is adequate for a straightforward get but lacks additional behavioral 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 a single, concise sentence (9 words) that is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no waste 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 one-parameter get tool, the description is functionally complete. It does not have an output schema, but the term 'details' gives enough context. It could have been slightly more detailed about the return value shape, but it is sufficient for the agent to understand the tool's role among the sibling tools.
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 complete documentation for the single parameter ('device_id' with description 'UUID of the device'), so the description adds no new parameter-level information. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the parameter is fully covered by 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('details for a specific bonded device') with a precise filter ('by UUID'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_bonded_devices' which lists all devices, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 implicitly communicates when to use this tool (when you have a UUID for a specific bonded device) by using the word 'specific' and 'by UUID'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'get_bonded_devices' for listing all devices, but the context is clear enough for a simple get operation.
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 implies a read operation via 'Get' and enumerates returned fields, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, requires an existing chamber, or how errors are handled. It does not contradict any annotations since none exist.
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 immediately states the action and resource, then lists key returned attributes in a readable list. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 has only one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides a solid list of return values including current/target temperature, PID settings, heating/cooling state, run-time statistics, and active profile. It lacks explicit note about error responses or prerequisites, but is otherwise complete for the tool's simple scope.
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 describes chamber_id as 'UUID of the fermentation chamber' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning or constraints for the parameter, 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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed status of a single fermentation chamber'. It lists concrete fields (temperature, PID settings, heating/cooling state, run-time statistics, active profile) and explicitly notes 'single', distinguishing it from sibling 'get_fermentation_chambers' (plural) and 'get_fermentation_chamber_telemetry'.
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 implies usage for retrieving a single chamber's detailed status, and the sibling list shows other tools for listing or telemetry. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives or mention exclusions (e.g., 'for telemetry use get_fermentation_chamber_telemetry'). This is clear context without explicit alternative guidance.
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 burden of transparency. It does list the specific fields returned (gravity, velocity, temperature, battery), which is useful. However, it does not disclose any error behavior (e.g., not found), rate limits, or whether readings are live/cached, leaving clear 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states what the tool does and lists the key return fields. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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 single-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and the main return values. It is not overly verbose, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what the tool provides.
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 covers the single parameter 'hydrometer_id' with a description ('UUID of the hydrometer/RaptPill'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond restating that it's for a single hydrometer, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed status of a single RaptPill hydrometer'), clearly distinguishing it from the plural sibling 'get_hydrometers'. It also enumerates the key data points returned, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.
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 word 'single' clearly implies this tool is for one hydrometer, contrasting with the plural 'get_hydrometers'. It provides clear context for when to use it, but does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'get_hydrometer_telemetry' or state when not to use it.
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 full burden. It discloses that the tool returns timestamped readings and is historical in nature, but it doesn't mention behavior such as default date ranges, potential pagination, or explicitly confirm it's a read-only operation (though 'Get' strongly implies this). Given the lack of annotations, a bit more behavioral context would be beneficial.
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 front-loads the core purpose ('Get historical telemetry data') and then adds specific return content. Every word earns its place, with no wasted or redundant phrasing.
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 straightforward read-only telemetry tool, the description and schema together provide a solid picture. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit mention of gravity, temperature, and battery readings. However, it would be more complete if it noted behavior like what happens when no dates are supplied or how the profile_session_id filter works, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.
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 describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters (e.g., how start_date/end_date interact, or what profile_session_id filters by), but it also doesn't need to since the schema descriptions are adequate.
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 specifies the action ('Get historical telemetry data'), the target resource ('a RaptPill hydrometer'), and the exact data returned ('timestamped gravity, temperature, and battery readings'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_hydrometer (likely current state) and get_fermentation_chamber_telemetry, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 implies when to use this tool: whenever historical telemetry from a hydrometer is needed. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use this instead of get_hydrometer for historical data'), but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer its role relative 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, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns a profile with steps and alerts, but does not address error behavior, authentication, or read-only expectations beyond the verb 'Get'.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the tool's purpose with no filler or repetition of schema details.
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 single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description adequately covers the returned content ('all steps and alerts'). It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly, though it omits no notable context.
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 fully describes profile_id as a UUID, and the description adds no additional parameter detail. With 100% schema coverage, the description is not required to compensate, 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+resource ('Get details of a specific fermentation profile') and indicates the scope ('all steps and alerts'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_profiles (list) and get_profile_types.
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 phrase 'specific fermentation profile' clearly signals this is for retrieving one profile by ID rather than listing profiles. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it misses the full explicit guidance.
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 full burden. The verb 'List' suggests a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly disclose lack of side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format. It provides basic but not comprehensive 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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words, front-loading the verb and resource.
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 parameterless list tool, the description is sufficiently complete, naming the resource and system. However, it could benefit from clarifying what a 'profile type' is or whether the list is ordered, but this is minor given the simplicity.
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?
No parameters exist, so the baseline is 4. The empty schema already indicates no arguments are required, and the description need not add parameter details.
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 the specific verb 'List' with resource 'profile types' and system context 'RAPT system', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_profiles/get_profile by focusing on 'types' rather than individual profiles or lists of 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 description implies usage for enumerating available profile types but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_profiles or get_profile. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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. 'List' clearly indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the account scope is stated. It does not disclose return format or pagination, but the operation is inherently simple and the description provides the essential behavioral context.
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 front-loads the action ('List all fermentation chambers') and includes the scope ('in the RAPT account'). There is zero wasted text, making it ideal for a zero-parameter list 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?
The description covers the tool's purpose and scope but does not mention the return structure, since there is no output schema. Given the simplicity of a list operation, this is a minor gap; it is adequate but lacks detail on what fields or data the returned chambers include.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description has no parameters to explain, and nothing in the description contradicts or adds to the empty schema. No additional parameter semantics are needed.
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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'fermentation chambers' and clarifies scope as 'all in the RAPT account.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the singular sibling get_fermentation_chamber by the plural 'chambers' and 'all.'
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 usage is implied: call this when you need a list of all fermentation chambers in the account. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, such as using get_fermentation_chamber for a specific chamber, so guidance relies on the tool name and plural form.
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 safety burden. It implies a read-only operation by saying 'List all,' and it discloses the returned fields (current gravity, temperature, battery level). Yet it does not mention account authorization, potential stale data, or that results may include unpaired devices, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.
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 clear sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the returned data. Every word adds value with 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?
For a simple parameterless list tool, the description adequately covers purpose and return fields. Without an output schema, it provides enough context for an agent to understand the summary data. It could mention explicit alternatives for single-device or telemetry details, but that is not essential given the tool's simplicity.
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 is at 100% coverage (empty object). Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 applies since there are no parameters to explain; the description appropriately adds no redundant parameter details.
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 'List all hydrometers' and identifies the resource as 'RaptPill devices in the RAPT account.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_hydrometer (single device) and get_hydrometer_telemetry (historical data).
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 states this returns all hydrometers and current readings, implying use cases for overview vs single-device or telemetry. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.
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:

[![raptio-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tobiask1977/raptio-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tobiask1977/raptio-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![raptio-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tobiask1977/raptio-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tobiask1977/raptio-mcp)

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/tobiask1977/raptio-mcp'

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