Bryti

Set a day's dinner category

set_category_for_date

Add a rule for one date: the dinner should be of this category (Hard = must, Soft = preferably). The answer's undo deletes the rule again.

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": {
      "date": "<date>",
      "category": "<category>",
      "strength": "<strength>"
    },
    "name": "set_category_for_date"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	Yes	The date, ISO date.
`category`	Yes	The meal category for that day.
`strength`	Yes	Soft unless the household says the rule must hold. Hard ONLY when the words are must/never/always (må/aldri/alltid/skal/kan ikke/ikke lov). Everything else is Soft — a preference the planner may bend on a tight week — including a bare statement said in passing («Taco på fredager», «Fisk to ganger i uka», «Maks 30 minutter på hverdager») and helst/gjerne/prøv. «Maks», «minst» and a number name the limit, not its strength: they do not make a rule Hard.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing reversibility: 'The answer's undo deletes the rule again.' That tells the agent the mutation is a safe, undoable add. It does not state what happens when a rule already exists for that date (duplicate vs replace), which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action and its scope front-loaded and the undo behavior as a brief trailing clarification. Nothing needs to be trimmed.

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 3-parameter, fully documented, non-destructive mutation with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. The one gap is the collision behavior when a rule for that date already exists, which is a meaningful omission for a non-idempotent add.

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% and the enum descriptions are already detailed, including a long explanation of Hard vs Soft, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'Hard = must, Soft = preferably' only restates a small part of that. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus scope: 'Add a rule for one date: the dinner should be of this category.' That distinguishes it from the week-level rules (plan_week, replan_open_days) and frequency-style rules. However, it never differentiates itself from the very similar sibling upsert_category_on_day_rule, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'for one date' scoping, and the parenthetical 'Hard = must, Soft = preferably' encodes the main decision the caller faces. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as upsert_category_frequency_rule for repeating patterns or delete_rule for removal.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Bryti tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?