Skip to main content
Glama
cacack

mcp-server-brewfather

by cacack
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

update_recipe

Edit a Brewfather recipe's settings and ingredient bill: change batch size, boil time, efficiency, or add, update, and remove 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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that this is an edit/mutation, that stats cannot be set because Brewfather computes them, and that ingredient changes can modify, remove, or add items with a name-check safeguard. It also describes the return shape, but omits operational details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether unspecified fields are left unchanged.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then organized into clear, topic-specific paragraphs and bullet points. Although lengthy, every section appears to earn its place by specifying field constraints, ingredient mutation patterns, and parameter examples for a complex update operation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers the required recipe_id implicitly, fully explains the optional fields and ingredients parameters, lists ingredient fields, provides examples, and states the return object shape.

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 thoroughly. It enumerates allowed fields keys, metric units, disallowed stats, ingredient operation syntax with index semantics, remove/current_name behavior, add requirements, units by ingredient kind, and a concrete example. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Edit a recipe's settings and/or ingredient bill.' It is clear what the tool does and distinguishes the mutation intent from read-only siblings like get_recipe and find_recipes. However, it does not explicitly name or compare against alternatives, so it falls short of the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is for editing a recipe, and the description explains detailed mechanical usage of fields and ingredients. But it never says when to choose this tool over siblings like update_batch or get_recipe, nor does it state explicit prerequisites such as needing to call get_recipe first to obtain indices and current_name.

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