Skip to main content
Glama
getsimba-ai

Simba MCP Server

Official
by getsimba-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Create Recipe Draft

create_recipe_draft
Idempotent

Save an encrypted recipe authoring draft without publishing it. Create a new draft, start an edit session, or branch a published recipe for later publication.

Instructions

Save an encrypted authoring draft without publishing, fitting or consuming an attempt. Supply a UUID draft_id and reuse it with identical content after an uncertain response. Start from get_recipe_draft_template for a new draft, or from get_recipe_revision_authoring when working from a published revision. To edit a recipe in place, pass target={recipe_id, base_revision_id}: the draft becomes an edit session of that recipe and publish_recipe_draft with a matching target writes the recipe's next revision; the target is immutable after creation (409 on a replay that names another; 404 for a recipe outside the study). To branch a published recipe into a new one instead, omit target and supply its source_revision_id from this study; the immutable link carries inherited influence through publication. Backend validates version and size.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
targetNo
draft_idYes
snapshotYesLossless editor authoring state. Backend is authoritative; preserve unknown nested fields. Source bytes are copied into encrypted draft storage (10 MB source limit); metadata limit is 5 MB. No local filesystem paths or executable code.
study_idYes
source_revision_idNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.12.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / snapshot / properties / incrementality_tests
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional recorded incrementality tests by reference ({test_id, version?, channel?, confirm_kpi?}); each is derived against every prepared brand's own data when the draft is published, and the revision records which test versions it used. A test that can't calibrate a brand fails publication with its reason.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 50,
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.8.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / target
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "description": "The recipe an edit session works on (jellyfish #881). recipe_id must belong to the draft's study; base_revision_id, when given, must belong to that recipe (404 otherwise) and is recorded as the new revision's source. Immutable after creation: a replay naming another target is refused (409).",
+      "properties": {
+        "base_revision_id": {
+          "type": [
+            "string",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "recipe_id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "recipe_id"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Target"
+}
  3. Addedv0.5.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true): the idempotent replay contract (reuse identical draft_id), target immutability with specific 409/404 semantics, and backend version/size validation. The description's write/idempotent behavior is fully consistent with the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose before extending into the mode-switching rules, and every sentence carries load (idempotency, target vs branch, error codes). It is dense and long, which slightly raises parsing effort, but there is little pure 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the full complexity of the two draft modes, the template entry points, and replay semantics. Minor gaps remain around name/study_id scoping, but nothing that would cause a mis-invocation.

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?

With only 17% schema description coverage, the description compensates well for the complex parameters: target becomes an edit session with an immutable recipe link, source_revision_id branches into a new recipe scoped to the study, and draft_id is a reusable UUID. It leaves name, study_id, and snapshot body undocumented, but those are self-evident or covered by nested schema field descriptions.

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 ('Save an encrypted authoring draft') plus the distinguishing constraint that it neither publishes nor consumes an attempt. It explicitly differentiates itself from siblings like get_recipe_draft_template, get_recipe_revision_authoring, and publish_recipe_draft, so an agent can tell the modes apart.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use routing: start from get_recipe_draft_template for a new draft, from get_recipe_revision_authoring when working from a published revision, pass target to edit in place, or omit target and supply source_revision_id to branch. The alternative paths and their selecting conditions are spelled out, not implied.

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