Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

brewmark

by io.brewmark
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Convert a grind setting

convert_grind_setting
Read-onlyIdempotent

Translate a grind setting from one coffee grinder to another. Use whenever a recipe quotes a setting for a grinder the user does not own — "the recipe says 18 clicks on a Comandante, what is that on my Encore?". Grinder names can be written however the user said them ("Fellow Ode", "1Zpresso J-Max"); exact slugs are not required.

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": {
      "from": "<from>",
      "setting": "<setting>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "convert_grind_setting"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesThe grinder to convert to, e.g. "Baratza Encore"
fromYesThe grinder the setting is quoted for, e.g. "Comandante C40 MK4"
settingYesThe setting on the source grinder as written on it, e.g. 18. On Fellow dials the digit after the point counts marks (4.2 on an Ode is the second mark after 4); a Baratza Forte is macro number and micro letter, e.g. "4R".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / setting / description
      Previous value: -"The numeric setting on the source grinder, e.g. 18"New value: +"The setting on the source grinder as written on it, e.g. 18. On Fellow dials the digit after the point counts marks (4.2 on an Ode is the second mark after 4); a Baratza Forte is macro number and micro letter, e.g. \"4R\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / setting / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +[
+  "number",
+  "string"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral trait beyond that: grinder names can be free-form and "exact slugs are not required", which tells the agent it can pass user phrasing verbatim. It does not say what the response contains (the converted number alone, a range, a warning), which is the main remaining gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the trigger, then the input tolerance. Nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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 simple, closed-world, three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, trigger and input flexibility. The only missing piece is the shape of the result — no output schema exists, so buyers would benefit from knowing whether it returns a single setting, a range, or an approximate flag.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with format examples (Ode decimal marks, Forte "4R"). The description adds only the name-tolerance note, which overlaps with what the schema implies via its examples, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Translate a grind setting from one coffee grinder to another") that is unmistakably distinct from siblings like dial_in, find_grinder, get_grinder_chart and list_grinders. The quoted recipe example makes the operation concrete.

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?

"Use whenever a recipe quotes a setting for a grinder the user does not own" gives an explicit trigger condition with a worked example. It does not name the sibling tools or state when a different tool (e.g. dial_in for tuning a single grinder) should be preferred, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

All brewmark 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