Skip to main content
Glama
cacack

mcp-server-brewfather

by cacack
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_brewtracker

Get real-time brew-day tracker status for a batch, including current stage, step, time remaining, upcoming steps, and next stage. Returns a message if no tracker exists.

Instructions

Read a batch's brew-day tracker: current stage (e.g. Mash, Boil) and step, time left on the stage timer, the steps still to come, and the next stage.

Returns {active, completed, started, stage, paused, stage_duration,
stage_remaining, current_step, upcoming: [...], next_stage}. Times are seconds;
a step's ``at`` is the stage-timer value (seconds left) when it fires, and
``waits_for_you`` marks steps the tracker pauses for. ``stage_remaining`` is
computed at call time. A step's ``value`` is its target temperature in °C,
omitted when it has none; descriptions use the account's display units.

When there is nothing to track — no tracker, or a finished one — the result has
a ``message`` instead of ``stage``. Check for ``message``, not ``active``:
``active`` is also false for a paused tracker that still has a stage.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
batch_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "title": "get_brewtrackerDictOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Addedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well on return semantics: it discloses that `stage_remaining` is computed at call time, that `at`/`value` have special units/meaning, and that a finished or absent tracker returns `message` rather than `stage`. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or side effects, though 'Read' implies read-only.

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?

The definition is front-loaded with a one-line summary before the field-level detail, and each sentence conveys a distinct, non-redundant fact (timers, `waits_for_you`, unit handling, the `message` edge case). It is denser and longer than strictly needed given an output schema exists, but no sentence is 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 single-parameter read tool with a published output schema, the description is generously complete on semantics and edge cases, including the non-obvious `message`-vs-`active` distinction. The main gap is that `batch_id` is entirely unexplained and no alternative tool is referenced.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and there is one parameter, `batch_id`, which the description never characterizes beyond the phrase "a batch's" — no format, ID type, or example. With low coverage the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read a batch's brew-day tracker' with an enumerated scope (current stage, step, timer, upcoming steps, next stage). It is unambiguous about what is returned, but it never references any sibling tool (e.g. get_batch, get_readings) to differentiate when this tracker read is the right call.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied — the detailed return semantics make clear this is a brew-day, live-timer read, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'use get_batch instead for...' guidance. The only actionable routing hint is the warning to check for `message`, which is a return-shape caveat rather than a use-case rule.

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