Skip to main content
Glama
cacack

mcp-server-brewfather

by cacack
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

set_inventory

Update stock for one BrewFather inventory item: choose fermentables, hops, miscs, or yeasts, then set an absolute amount or apply a positive/negative adjustment.

Instructions

Change the stock of one inventory item.

Pass exactly one of ``amount`` (set absolute stock) or ``adjust`` (add, or
subtract with a negative number — e.g. after brew day). ``kind`` is
fermentables, hops, miscs, or yeasts. Returns {item_id, result}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYes
adjustNo
amountNo
item_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": "set_inventoryDictOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the core mutation semantics (absolute set vs. additive/subtractive adjust) and return shape, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, error handling, or whether it can create records unlike create_inventory_item.

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?

The description is three short sentences, front-loads the core action, then covers mode selection and return shape without any wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not strictly required, though the description provides it anyway. It covers the essential parameter semantics for a 4-parameter tool, but misses tool-routing guidance and mutation safety context that no annotations provide.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively defines amount, adjust, and kind, and specifies the mutual exclusivity rule. item_id is left implicit, keeping it from a 5.

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: 'Change the stock of one inventory item.' It does not differentiate this tool from update_inventory_item, a sibling that also affects inventory, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It clearly distinguishes the amount and adjust modes and notes that exactly one must be passed, with a use-case example ('after brew day'). However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over update_inventory_item or other inventory-related siblings.

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