Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Glazecalc

by com.glazecalcapp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Change one of my materials

update_my_material
Destructive

Changes one of your own materials (an id from list_my_materials): its name, oxide analysis in weight percent, loss on ignition or notes. Only what is given changes. Recipes already saved keep their own copy of it. The material as it was is kept as an earlier version, so the person can undo the change on the website. Needs an access token that can read and change your records.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe material, from list_my_materials.
loiNo
revNoThe record’s rev as you last read it. When given, the change is made only if the record has not changed since; otherwise nothing is changed. Left out, the change is always made.
nameNo
notesNo
analysisNoIts oxides in weight percent, as on a data sheet: { "SiO2": 68.5, "Al2O3": 17.4, "K2O": 9.8 }.
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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / rev
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The record’s rev as you last read it. When given, the change is made only if the record has not changed since; otherwise nothing is changed. Left out, the change is always made.",
+  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses important behavior: only supplied fields change, saved recipes retain their own copy, a previous version is kept for undo, and the token must be able to read and change records. These details substantially clarify the mutation semantics and authorization needs.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, then adds only helpful behavioral constraints: partial updates, recipe independence, version history, and auth scope. It is compact and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 destructive mutation with nested oxide analysis and no output schema, the description covers the essential risks and update behavior well. It could be more complete by mentioning response behavior or explicitly connecting the rev parameter to concurrency, though the schema already documents rev.

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?

The description adds meaning for the main mutable fields by listing name, oxide analysis in weight percent, loss on ignition, and notes, and it states that only given fields change. However, it does not explain the rev concurrency parameter or the language parameter, leaving part of the 57% schema coverage to compensate.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it changes one of the user's own materials, identified by an id from list_my_materials. It also names the mutable fields (name, oxide analysis, LOI, notes), making the operation clearly distinguishable from add_my_material or recipe tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a clear usage context: use it to change an existing material owned by the user, with the id obtained from list_my_materials. It does not explicitly name when not to use it versus siblings such as add_my_material or update_recipe, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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