curator-mcp

Log Sensory Item

log_sensory_item

Log or update sensory items like tea, whiskey, coffee, wine, gin, perfume, or watches in a private vault, capturing specs, ratings, notes, and status for future reference.

Instructions

Log or update an item in the Sensory Vault (tea, whiskey, coffee, wine, gin, perfume, watch).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Name of bottle, vintage, bean, blend, fragrance, or reference.
`specs`	No	Domain-specific technical specifications (ABV, processing method, movement caliber).
`review`	No	Detailed tasting appraisal.
`status`	No	'owned', 'wishlist', or 'experienced'.	owned
`item_id`	No	Optional existing item ID.
`category`	Yes	Domain ('whiskey', 'wine', 'coffee', 'tea', 'gin', 'chocolate', 'perfume', 'watch').
`price_tier`	No	Pricing bracket ('$', '$$', '$$$', '$$$$').
`user_rating`	No	Rating from 1.0 to 10.0.
`maker_or_brand`	Yes	Producer, distillery, roaster, estate, or maison.
`personal_notes`	No	Private reflections or cellaring notes.
`vintage_or_year`	No	Vintage year or production release.
`date_experienced`	No	Date tasted or acquired (YYYY-MM-DD).
`origin_or_region`	No	Terroir or country of origin (e.g. 'Islay, Scotland', 'Yirgacheffe, Ethiopia').
`flavor_or_scent_notes`	No	Flavor accords, nose aromas, or olfactory pyramid notes.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'log or update' (a mutation) but never states whether an update overwrites prior fields, merges them, requires ownership, or is reversible. For a 14-parameter write tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant disclosure gap.

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?

A single sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and the domain list appended for disambiguation. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs to be scanned past.

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

Completeness2/5

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 no explanation, but for a 14-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description omits create-vs-update semantics, overwrite behavior, and routing to search_sensory_vault. It is too thin for the tool's complexity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 14 parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description only repeats a subset of the category values ('tea, whiskey, coffee, wine, gin, perfume, watch') and actually omits 'chocolate', which the schema lists, so it adds no reliable meaning beyond the 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?

States a specific verb pair ('log or update') and resource ('item in the Sensory Vault'), and enumerates the domains it handles, which separates it from log_read_book, log_watched_media, and log_restaurant. It does not explicitly name search_sensory_vault as the read-side alternative, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The phrase 'log or update' hints at two modes but never explains when to use which, nor when to reach for search_sensory_vault instead. No prerequisites, no mention that item_id selects update vs create. The agent must infer usage entirely from the schema.

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