Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Glazecalc

by com.glazecalcapp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Remake a recipe from given materials

match_from_materials
Read-onlyIdempotent

Remakes a glaze recipe from only the materials listed in "have", keeping its unity formula as near as they allow, as Match with what I have does in the Glazecalc app. report.closeness says how near the new unity formula comes to the old, oxide by oxide: close (within 0.02, or 5% of a large amount such as silica's), off, or far (more than three times that), with a verdict (close, fair or poor) and a summary. report.miss and report.best are the solver's own scores, for comparing runs. Raw clay is held to 20% of the batch where that costs the match little (report.capped and allowMore say more). Test any suggestion before using it.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
haveYesThe library names of the materials on hand.
linesYesThe recipe's base materials (not colorants), at most 40 lines.
mustUseNoMaterials on hand that must stay in.
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.
allowMoreNoMaterials whose suggested cap to lift, as report.capped names them: raw clay is held to 20% of the batch (or the recipe's own share) where that costs the match little.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / allowMore
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Materials whose suggested cap to lift, as report.capped names them: raw clay is held to 20% of the batch (or the recipe's own share) where that costs the match little.",
+  "items": {
+    "maxLength": 200,
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 20,
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial behavior: it explains the oxide-by-oxide closeness thresholds, the raw-clay 20% cap, and the solver score fields (report.miss, report.best, report.capped). It also cautions that suggestions should be tested before use. It stops short of naming rate limits or failure modes, so not a 5.

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 is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by output semantics and a closing caveat, which is a sensible order. The middle explanation of report.closeness thresholds is dense and wordy, but every sentence carries information, especially given there is no output schema.

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 does the heavy lifting by explaining the return fields and the capping behavior, and it flags the must-test caveat, so an agent can invoke and interpret results correctly. The one gap is the absence of explicit routing guidance versus the sibling tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description does link allowMore to report.capped (cross-field meaning not in the schema) and echoes the 'have' constraint, but leaves mustUse and language untouched, so the added value is marginal.

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 ('Remakes a glaze recipe') plus the defining constraint ('from only the materials listed in "have"'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like blend_recipes and suggest_substitutes. The reference to the Glazecalc 'Match with what I have' action anchors the concept precisely.

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 purpose, and 'Test any suggestion before using it' gives a caution, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as blend_recipes or suggest_substitutes, and no stated prerequisites. An agent must infer context from the description alone.

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

All Glazecalc toolsInspect
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