delete_shotDelete a logged shot from history. Restores the bean's remaining weight (which is derived from logged doses). Hard delete — there is no undo. To fix a mistake on an otherwise-valid shot, prefer update_shot over delete-and-relog.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| shot_id | Yes | ID of the shot to delete |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| deleted_shot_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "deleted_shot_id": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "status",
+ "deleted_shot_id",
+ "message"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the key side effect: restoring the bean's remaining weight, which is derived from logged doses. It also explicitly warns that this is a hard delete with no undo, adding meaningful behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations. No contradiction with the annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three tightly written sentences convey action, side effects, and the preferred alternative without any fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence serves a distinct informative purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple single-parameter tool with full schema coverage, output schema present, annotations covering safety traits, and a description that explains side effects and usage context. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter shot_id is already documented in the schema. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail, but it also does not contribute anything beyond the schema for parameter understanding. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
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: 'Delete a logged shot from history.' It clearly differentiates from update_shot by emphasizing hard deletion and explicitly naming the alternative. An agent immediately understands what this tool does and how it differs from similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says when to prefer update_shot instead: 'To fix a mistake on an otherwise-valid shot, prefer update_shot over delete-and-relog.' This provides a clear decision rule and contextual guidance beyond a simple definition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target a clearly distinct resource and action, and the list/register/update/set tool families are easy to tell apart. The closest pair is diagnose_preview and diagnose_shot, which are well-described but similar enough in name that an agent could select the wrong one.
The overwhelming majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_beans, register_grinder, update_shot, set_active). Minor exceptions like grinder_math and kb_changelog lack the imperative verb prefix, but they are readable and do not create real confusion.
34 tools is above the 25+ threshold and feels heavy even though the domain is fairly rich. The many parallel list_* and register_* tools for beans, grinders, machines, scales, waters, programs, and recipes could plausibly be consolidated or trimmed without losing core capability.
The core shot lifecycle is well covered: log, update, delete, diagnose, and list shots, plus bean registration and maintenance tracking. However, most registered entities lack update/delete tools, and get_rule has no corresponding list_rules tool, leaving some obvious workflow gaps that agents must work around.