Skip to main content
Glama

Blend recipes for test tiles

blend_recipes
Read-onlyIdempotent

Works out the test tiles of a line blend between recipes a and b (2 to 11 steps), or of a triaxial blend when c is given too (2 to 6 rows, up to 21 tiles), as the Blends page of the Glazecalc app does. Each tile is a mix of the corner recipes, each taken as a percent of its base: its shares, its recipe in percent, its key unity formula figures (silica, alumina, boron, the fluxes), silica to alumina, calculated expansion, its place on the Stull chart (stull), the names of the limit cautions it has, and, with a firing, whether its chemistry fits that firing (coneFit verdict). With two recipes and steps 2 it compares them oxide by oxide (differences). Give base materials only, no colorants. This is a calculation from published figures, not a test result: the tiles, fired, decide, and the cautions are guides, not a guarantee of food safety.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aYesRecipe A, the first corner (the line's first tile, or the top of the triangle).
bYesRecipe B (the line's last tile, or the triangle's bottom left).
cNoRecipe C, the triangle's bottom right. Leave it out for a line blend between a and b.
stepsNoTiles in the line (2 to 11, default 5), or rows of the triangle when c is given (2 to 6, default 4).
firingNoThe firing, as a cone or a temperature. Leave it out when it is not known. From cone 12 up (about 1320 °C) no published glaze limits reach, so the limits are not checked there; the cone check judges cone 06 to 10 only.
languageNoThe language for any sentences in the answer, as a BCP 47 tag such as "en", "de" or "ja". Languages Glazecalc does not offer are answered in English.
limitSetNoThe limits to check against, as check_limits takes it: "glazecalc" (the default) or "hesselberth-roy".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / firing / description
      Previous value: -"The firing, as a cone or a temperature. Leave it out when it is not known."New value: +"The firing, as a cone or a temperature. Leave it out when it is not known. From cone 12 up (about 1320 °C) no published glaze limits reach, so the limits are not checked there; the cone check judges cone 06 to 10 only."
    • changedInput schema / properties / firing / properties / celsius / maximum
      Previous value: -1500New value: +1600
    • changedInput schema / properties / firing / properties / cone / description
      Previous value: -"An Orton cone from 06 to 6 (\"06\", \"04\", \"6\"), or an SK cone with chart \"sk\"."New value: +"An Orton cone from 022 to 42 (\"06\", \"6\", \"10\", \"14\", a half cone as \"5.5\"), or with chart \"sk\" an SK cone (JIS R 8101) from SK 022 to SK 20 (\"6a\", \"8\", \"14\")."
    • changedInput schema / properties / firing / properties / cone / maxLength
      Previous value: -5New value: +10
    • changedInput schema / properties / firing / properties / fahrenheit / maximum
      Previous value: -2750New value: +2912
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the exact payload of each tile (shares, unity formula figures, silica:alumina, expansion, Stull position, cautions, coneFit verdict), the 21-tile ceiling, and the limits-not-checked-above-cone-12/coneFit-only-06-to-10 caveats. The 'calculation from published figures, not a test result' disclaimer is useful framing the annotations cannot supply.

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?

Purpose and both blend modes are front-loaded in the first sentence, and every later clause carries information (inputs, outputs, caveats). The long mid-sentence enumeration of returned figures is dense and would read better as a list, but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing returns and does so thoroughly, plus the safety and firing-range caveats. The only shortfall is that it doesn't explain how firing/limitSet/language interact with the verdict fields, though the schema already documents those parameters.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by tying a/b/c to their geometric corners (first tile/top of triangle, last tile/bottom left), explaining that steps counts tiles for a line but rows for a triangle, and flagging the steps=2 comparison behavior and the no-colorants constraint on the recipe arrays.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it works out the test tiles of a line blend between recipes a and b, or a triaxial blend when c is given. The 2–11 / 2–6 step bounds and the Glazecalc Blends page reference make the scope unambiguous and distinguish it from compare_recipes and vary_material.

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?

It shapes usage within the tool well (leave c out for a line, give it for a triangle; give base materials only, no colorants) and notes that two recipes with steps 2 yields an oxide-by-oxide comparison, hinting at compare_recipes. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer one, so an agent must infer the sibling routing.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.