list_watersList registered waters for the account. The id on each row is the number this account knows that record by, counting from 1 — safe to show, and what other tools expect back.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by status: current (unarchived), archived, or all. Defaults to current. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| waters | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / waters / itemsAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "archived": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "calcium": {
+ "type": "null"
+ },
+ "gh": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "kh": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "magnesium": {
+ "type": "null"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "notes": {
+ "type": "null"
+ },
+ "sodium": {
+ "type": "null"
+ },
+ "tds": {
+ "type": "null"
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "name",
+ "type",
+ "tds",
+ "gh",
+ "kh",
+ "sodium",
+ "calcium",
+ "magnesium",
+ "notes",
+ "archived"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "waters": {
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "waters"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explaining that IDs are account-local, sequential from 1, safe to show, and expected by other tools—useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences, both purposeful. The core action is front-loaded, and the ID caveat is relevant without being verbose. No wasted words or redundant restatement of the schema.
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?
For a simple read-only list operation with one documented optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers scope, ID semantics, and cross-tool expectations. No critical call-time information is missing.
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 coverage is 100%: the single optional status parameter is fully documented with enum values and default behavior. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a clear verb-resource pair: 'List registered waters for the account.' It specifies scope (account-level) and distinguishes the resource from other list tools like list_recipes. The ID note reinforces what the tool returns.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_recipes or list_beans. It does not mention filtering use cases or when status parameters should be used. The ID note implies use with other tools, but that is not a direct usage guideline.
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.