brewmark

Grind for a recipe on your grinder

translate_recipe

Read-onlyIdempotent

Turn a recipe written in the open BrewMark Protocol into a setting on the user's own grinder. Use when a coffee bag or roaster gives a BrewMark code or link ("7H2KQ9", "brewmark.io/p/7H2KQ9"), or a recipe gives its grind as a BrewMark Grind Index ("BGI 38") or as an Open Brew Profile (JSON with "spec": "brewmark.obp/0.1"). Pass one of code, bgi or profile. Spec: https://github.com/jeffreygluck/brewmark-protocol. For a recipe that quotes a setting on another grinder, use convert_grind_setting instead.

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": {
      "grinder": "<grinder>"
    },
    "name": "translate_recipe"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`bgi`	No	Grind target on the BrewMark Grind Index, 0 (espresso fine) to 100 (very coarse); 40 is filter medium
`code`	No	A BrewMark code from a coffee bag, or its link, e.g. "7H2KQ9" or "https://brewmark.io/p/7H2KQ9"
`grinder`	Yes	The user's grinder, named however they said it, e.g. "Fellow Ode", "Baratza Encore"
`profile`	No	An Open Brew Profile (spec "brewmark.obp/0.1"), as given by the roaster or app

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 29, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / code

Added value: +{
+  "description": "A BrewMark code from a coffee bag, or its link, e.g. \"7H2KQ9\" or \"https://brewmark.io/p/7H2KQ9\"",
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedOct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that resolution is against 'the user's own grinder' and that inputs come from roaster-supplied protocol artifacts, but it does not say what happens if the grinder is unknown (relevant given find_grinder/list_grinders siblings) or how an ambiguous grinder name is handled.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by trigger examples, input-combination rule, spec link, and sibling routing. Every sentence carries actionable information; no filler.

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?

Given a nested profile object, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers input formats, input exclusivity, and alternatives adequately. The main remaining gap is return-value shape and error behavior for unrecognized grinders, which the absence of an output schema leaves unaddressed.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns extra by stating 'Pass one of `code`, `bgi` or `profile`', which makes the mutual exclusivity of the three inputs explicit — a constraint the schema's flat properties list does not encode. The `grinder` semantics ('named however they said it') only restate the schema description.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('turn a BrewMark recipe into a grinder setting') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling convert_grind_setting. An agent can route correctly 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Gives concrete trigger inputs (BrewMark code/link like "7H2KQ9", BGI like "BGI 38", OBP JSON with spec brewmark.obp/0.1) and an explicit exclusion routing to convert_grind_setting for settings quoted from another grinder. Nothing is left to inference about when to pick this tool.

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

All brewmark tools Inspect

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

Need Help?