Skip to main content
Glama
cacack

mcp-server-brewfather

by cacack

update_recipe

Edit a Brewfather recipe's settings or ingredient bill by updating fields and adding, changing, or removing fermentables, hops, miscs, and yeasts.

Instructions

Edit a recipe's settings and/or ingredient bill.

``fields`` keys (metric — liters, minutes, percent): name, author, notes,
batchSize, boilSize, boilTime, efficiency. Stats (og, fg, abv, ibu, color)
can't be set; Brewfather computes them from the ingredients.

``ingredients`` is a list of changes, each with ``kind`` (fermentables, hops,
miscs, yeasts) and:
- ``index`` + fields to change an item — index is its 0-based position in
  get_recipe's list, e.g. {"kind": "hops", "index": 1, "amount": 50};
- ``index`` + ``"remove": true`` to delete it;
- with ``index``, pass ``current_name`` (the item's name as get_recipe showed
  it) and the change is rejected if the item there has a different name;
- no index to add one; needs name and amount, e.g. {"kind": "hops",
  "name": "Citra", "amount": 30, "alpha": 12, "use": "Boil", "time": 5}.
Ingredient fields: name, amount (kg for fermentables, g for hops), unit,
type, use, time, alpha, color, potential, attenuation, form, laboratory,
origin, supplier.

Returns {recipe_id, result, note}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsNo
recipe_idYes
ingredientsNo

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": "update_recipeDictOutput",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: stats (og, fg, abv, ibu, color) cannot be set because Brewfather computes them, and a `current_name` mismatch causes the change to be rejected. It still omits permission requirements, whether the update is partial or full-replacement for unspecified fields, and whether removals are recoverable.

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 is front-loaded in the first line, then the two parameters are documented in separate labeled blocks with inline examples. The length is justified by the 0% schema coverage, though the markdown-escaped backticks add visual noise that a cleaner formatting would avoid.

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 complex mutation tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description support, the coverage is strong: both parameters, their sub-structures, units, guard conditions, and the return shape are documented. The remaining gaps are partial-vs-full update semantics and any auth/permission expectations.

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% (both params are bare anyOf/object), so the description must compensate and it does: it enumerates every `fields` key, defines the `ingredients` list shape with kind/index/remove/current_name semantics, gives a concrete example, and even specifies units (kg for fermentables, g for hops) plus the full ingredient field vocabulary.

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 and resource: 'Edit a recipe's settings and/or ingredient bill.' Combined with the sibling set, an agent can immediately distinguish this from create_recipe (new recipe) and update_batch (different resource) without opening any 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?

The description thoroughly routes between the two operation modes: partial field edits via `fields`, and the three ingredient-list cases (index to change, index + remove, no index to add). It does not, however, state when to prefer this tool over create_recipe or how it relates to get_recipe beyond being a prerequisite for indexes.

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