haus

update_meal_plan

Update a meal plan entry. Any field left out keeps its current value. Provide recipeId to link a recipe (clears any custom name) or name to make it a custom meal (clears the recipe link); recipeId takes precedence when both are given.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	ID of the meal plan entry to update (from list_meal_plans)
`date`	No	Date of the planned meal (format: YYYY-MM-DD). Must be from today up to four weeks ahead. Omit to leave unchanged.
`name`	No	Custom meal name when no recipe is linked
`notes`	No	Optional free-text notes about the planned meal. Omit to leave unchanged.
`mealType`	No	Which meal slot of the day this entry occupies. Omit to leave unchanged.
`recipeId`	No	ID of an existing recipe (from list_recipes or list_global_recipes)
`servings`	No	Number of servings for the planned meal. Between 1 and 100. Omit to leave unchanged.
`recipeSource`	No	Set 'global' when recipeId refers to a Discover/global recipe (from list_global_recipes); defaults to 'household'

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes
`title`	No
`message`	No
`variant`	No

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description reveals significant non-obvious behaviors: omitted fields retain their current values, recipeId and name mutually clear each other, and recipeId takes precedence when both are given. These traits go beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and are essential for safe invocation.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, then covering the most important conditional behaviors. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

Given the 8-parameter schema with detailed property descriptions and the presence of an output schema, the description supplies the essential interaction logic and partial-update rule. It does not restate individual parameters, which is appropriate, and the overall context is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

While the schema documents each parameter with 100% coverage, the description adds critical cross-parameter semantics: the recipeId/name clearing behavior and precedence rule, plus the general 'keep current value' rule across all fields. This adds meaning not evident from individual property 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?

The description opens with 'Update a meal plan entry,' which is a specific verb+resource statement, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_meal_plan and delete_meal_plan. It further clarifies the partial-update nature, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly name when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the verb 'update' combined with the sibling context (create/delete/list meal plans) makes the intended use clear for modifying an existing entry. The schema requirement for an id from list_meal_plans reinforces this context without formal exclusions.

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

All haus tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear descriptions separating similar-sounding tools like create_calendar_event vs create_recurring_calendar_event. Shopping list operations (add, buy, remove, update) are clearly delineated.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*, get_*, etc. Even special operations like store_memory, recall_memory, and skip_recommendation fit the pattern.

Tool Count1/5

With 68 tools, this server vastly exceeds a reasonable scope; the instruction manual indicates 50+ tools is an extreme mismatch. The breadth suggests the server should be split into focused sub-servers (tasks, shopping, calendar, etc.) rather than a single monolithic interface.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers full CRUD/lifecycle for all major resources: tasks, shopping, calendar, contacts, documents, appliances, vehicles, pets, recipes, meal plans, subscriptions, and memories. Additional features like house review, weather, and profile round out the household management domain.

Resources

Need Help?