Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Glazecalc

by com.glazecalcapp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Change one of my recipes

update_recipe
Destructive

Changes one of your saved recipes (an id from list_recipes): its title, its base materials and amounts (the unity formula is worked out again), its notes, firing band or food-surface mark. Only what is given changes. The recipe 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 recipe, from list_recipes.
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.
linesNoAll of its base materials, in place of the ones it has.
notesNoIts notes, in place of the ones it has.
titleNo
firingNoThe firing band its limits are checked in: low (cone 06-02), mid (cone 4-6), high (cone 9-11) or top (cone 12 up, where no limit set has figures, so none are checked), as the recipe page chooses it.
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.
foodSurfaceNo

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses that the prior recipe is retained as an earlier version and can be undone on the website, that supplying lines re-derives the unity formula, that the update is partial by default, and that a read-and-write access token is required. These are exactly the mutation, reversibility and auth facts an agent needs and that the annotations alone 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose then behavior then auth; every clause carries information. A few clauses (the parenthetical about the unity formula, the firing band phrasing) are dense, but nothing is redundant with the title.

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 an 8-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition covers reversibility, auth scope, partial update and recomputation. It does not describe the shape of the response (the language parameter implies prose in the answer but the return value is never characterized), which is the main remaining gap.

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 75% and already documents rev, lines/analysis, firing and language in detail. The description still adds real meaning: partial-update semantics across all optional fields and the fact that changing materials recomputes the unity formula, which the schema does not state.

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?

"Changes one of your saved recipes" pairs a specific verb with a specific resource, then enumerates the mutable fields (title, base materials and amounts, notes, firing band, food-surface mark) and names the source of the id (list_recipes). This clearly separates it from create_recipe and update_my_material without opening either schema.

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?

"Only what is given changes" and the pointer to list_recipes for the id give clear context for invoking it, and the recompute note signals a side effect of supplying lines. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., update_my_material vs this tool), so no explicit routing to siblings.

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