Chop it: meal planning, recipes, pantry and shopping

Analyse dinner nutrition and diversity

analyse_recipe_selection

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculates nutrition and plant diversity for an exact list of up to 14 dinners using Chop It's existing weekly food score engine. Each dinner takes a recipeId and its known servings. Accepts catalogue or the caller's own saved recipes. Suits comparing the current week with proposed swaps before approval; returns calculated analysis with estimated nutrients or an explicit unavailable result for missing ingredients or repeated recipe IDs. Reads only the named recipes, creates no draft and changes no plan or shopping. Available without an account for catalogue recipes.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "dinners": "<dinners>"
    },
    "name": "analyse_recipe_selection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dinners`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`analysis`	Yes
`recipeIds`	Yes
`missingRecipeIds`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description adds real context on top: it reads only the named recipes, creates no draft, changes no plan or shopping, works with catalogue or saved recipes, needs no account for catalogue recipes, and returns an explicit unavailable result for missing ingredients or duplicate IDs.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with what is calculated and how the input is shaped before moving to usage and side-effect guarantees. The read-only sentence partially restates readOnlyHint, but it earns its place by enumerating the specific mutations that do not occur.

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?

Covers the input shape, the limit, the failure mode for duplicates and missing ingredients, and the no-side-effect guarantee; with an output schema present, no return-value documentation is needed. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 carries the burden, and it does add meaning: each dinner entry is a recipeId plus its known servings, the list must be exact, capped at 14, and repeated recipe IDs yield an explicit unavailable result. It does not explain how servings interact with a recipe's default serving size, leaving one semantic gap.

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 (calculates) and resource (nutrition and plant diversity) with explicit scope: an exact list of up to 14 dinners, scored by the existing weekly food score engine. An agent can distinguish this from analyse_saved_weeks because the description makes clear it scores a caller-supplied dinner list rather than a persisted week.

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?

Gives a concrete usage scenario: 'Suits comparing the current week with proposed swaps before approval', which tells the agent when this pre-approval analysis is appropriate. It does not name analyse_saved_weeks or other siblings as alternatives, so the when-not-to-use side is left implicit.

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

All Chop it: meal planning, recipes, pantry and shopping tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?