Skip to main content
Glama
cacack

mcp-server-brewfather

by cacack

find_batches

Find brewing batches by name substring or status. Returns id, name, batch_no, status, brewer, brew_date, recipe for use with get_batch, get_readings, or update_batch.

Instructions

Find batches by name (case-insensitive substring) and/or status.

``status`` is one of Planning, Brewing, Fermenting, Conditioning, Completed,
Archived; empty means any. Returns compact dicts:
{id, name, batch_no, status, brewer, brew_date, recipe}. Use the id with
get_batch / get_readings / update_batch.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
statusNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses substring matching behavior, the full status enum, that empty means unfiltered, and the exact shape of the returned records. It does not mention ordering, result limits/pagination, or explicitly confirm the operation is a non-mutating read, which are minor gaps for this scope.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then filter semantics, then return shape and id-usage. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

For a low-complexity, zero-required-param finder with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, filtering, and routing. Minor omissions (ordering, pagination/limits) remain, and the enumerated return fields duplicate the output schema, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: name is case-insensitive substring, status accepts the enumerated values Planning/Brewing/Fermenting/Conditioning/Completed/Archived, and empty string means any. Both parameters gain meaning that the bare schema lacks.

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 (Find) and resource (batches) plus the exact matching semantics: case-insensitive substring on name and/or status filter. An agent can immediately tell this apart from get_batch (fetch one by id) or find_recipes (different resource) without opening the 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?

Explicitly says to take the returned id and use it with get_batch / get_readings / update_batch, which gives clear downstream chaining context, and clarifies that an empty status means 'any'. It stops short of stating when-not to use it (e.g. against listing-only paths), so it's clear but not fully exclusionary.

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