list_beansList coffee beans registered for the account, with status filter. 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, archived, or all. Defaults to current. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| beans | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by explaining the id contract: rows are numbered from 1 per account, safe to display, and expected as identifiers by other tools. This is useful behavioral context that structured annotations do not convey.
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 compact sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the important id semantics in the second sentence. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.
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, single-parameter list operation with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the essential non-obvious context: account-scoped records, status filtering, and the id numbering/sharing contract with other tools. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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% for the single optional status parameter, including enum values and default. The description's mention of 'status filter' is consistent but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so the high-coverage 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 identifies a specific action (List), a resource (coffee beans), a scope (registered for the account), and a filtering capability (status), making it clear what this tool does. The resource is distinct from sibling list tools such as list_shots or list_grinders, so an agent can tell it apart.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison with alternative tools. The account-scoped listing is stated, but the agent is not told when to prefer this over related list tools, and the default-to-current status is only available in the schema rather than the description.
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 sort cleanly into register_*, list_*, set_*, and log_* families with clear resource targets. The main ambiguity is between diagnose_shot and diagnose_preview, which are deliberately similar, and between get_dial_state and suggest_next_step, but the descriptions resolve these reasonably well.
Naming is overwhelmingly consistent snake_case verb_noun, such as register_coffee, list_shots, update_shot, and set_active. Minor exceptions like kb_changelog next to get_kb_version and grinder_math break the pattern slightly.
With 34 tools, the surface is well over the 25+ too-many threshold. The resource families are individually clear, but the assistant would be easier to navigate with fewer, more consolidated tools or less KB introspection surface.
The core dialing workflow is well covered: registration, shot logging, diagnosis, dial state, recipes, and maintenance. However, most registered entities such as grinders, machines, waters, scales, and programs have create+list but no update/delete, and recipes have no unlock/delete lifecycle.