Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bevel MCP

Bevel MCP

by JoshPopov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Set a Boolean Journal factor

bevel_set_journal_boolean
Idempotent

Set a yes/no Bevel Journal factor for a specific day, updating an existing entry in place or creating a new one; skips changes when the value is already set.

Instructions

Sets a yes/no Journal factor (e.g. Added Sugar) for one day, the way the app does: if an entry for that factor and day exists it is updated in place (same uuid and createdAt), otherwise a new entry is created. Does nothing if the value is already set. Requires BEVEL_ENABLE_WRITES=true unless dryRun is set. Success means Bevel listed the entry's uuid as succeeded; confirm it in the app after restarting it.

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": {
      "factorKey": "<factorKey>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "bevel_set_journal_boolean"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoCalendar day YYYY-MM-DD in the configured time zone. Defaults to today.
valueYestrue = the factor applied that day, false = it did not.
dryRunNoIf true, look up the existing entry and return the exact request that would be sent, without sending it.
factorKeyYesBevel preset factor key. Verified keys: addedSugar (Added Sugar), deviceInBed (Device in Bed), lateMeal (Late Meal).
allowUnverifiedFactorKeyNoRequired to write a factor key other than the verified ones. Only use keys actually seen in bevel_get_journal output.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare the write/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: in-place update preserving uuid and createdAt, no-op when the value is unchanged, the env-flag gate, and the exact success signal (uuid listed as succeeded). It even flags that the change may need an app restart to appear, which is unusual and useful behavioral detail.

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 and upsert behavior are front-loaded, followed by the write gate and the success criterion in a logical order with no filler. The closing 'confirm it in the app after restarting it' is slightly tacked-on but carries real operational meaning.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, idempotency, dry-run preview, and the success condition, which is nearly everything needed to call it safely. Minor gaps remain around error/failure reporting and what the response object contains beyond the uuid status.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including factorKey examples, the date pattern, dryRun, and allowUnverifiedFactorKey. The description only echoes dryRun and factor keys rather than adding syntax or semantics not already in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Sets a yes/no Journal factor ... for one day') and spells out upsert semantics, which distinguishes it from a plain clear/get operation. It never names the closest sibling (bevel_clear_journal_boolean) outright, so an agent must infer the boundary from the verb.

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?

It states concrete preconditions (BEVEL_ENABLE_WRITES=true unless dryRun is set) and restricts unverified keys to those 'actually seen in bevel_get_journal output', which routes the agent to a sibling tool for discovery. It does not explicitly say when to use this versus bevel_clear_journal_boolean or bevel_get_journal, so no explicit exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools