Gaurmon

Change the grocery list

update_list

Destructive

Add items to, remove items from, or tick items on the user's grocery list by hand (at most 100 items; an item already on the list isn't added twice, but one there only for a meal becomes wanted by hand too). Give an amount for each item so it's costed right. Use item ids from get_list. clear: "checked" removes ticked items after a shop; clear: "all" empties the list and its meals. For a meal's ingredients use update_meals instead, so they stay linked. Returns the list like get_list. After a shop, offer to record what was bought with record_purchases.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "update_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`add`	No
`near`	No	Where to price the list. Remembered for next time; omit to use the last place.
`check`	No	Mark bought.
`clear`	No
`remove`	No
`uncheck`	No
`radiusKm`	No	Search radius in km around `near` (default 5).
`maxStores`	No	Shop at most this many stores (remembered; null clears it). The list is split across the set that prices the most items for the least.
`preferBanners`	No	Only these banners, e.g. ["no-frills", "food-basics"] (remembered; null clears it).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, it discloses what is destroyed (clear:"all" empties the list and its meals), the dedupe rule (an existing item isn't added twice; a meal-only item becomes wanted by hand), the 100-item cap, and that near is remembered for next time. It does not explain what happens to unchecked/priced state or any pricing recalculation cost, so it stops just short of fully rich disclosure for a destructive mutation.

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?

Single front-loaded paragraph: core actions first, then constraints, then clear semantics, then alternatives and next steps. Very little waste, though the nested parentheticals make it a dense run-on that could be split for scanability.

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?

For a 9-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, it covers return shape ("Returns the list like get_list"), side effects, dedupe rules, and sibling routing. The main gap is the pricing-location knobs (near, radiusKm, maxStores, preferBanners), which the description never acknowledges even though they materially change what gets priced.

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 coverage is 56%, and the description compensates well for the weakest parts: it explains the clear enum values, the amount/unit costing requirement, and the fact that check/remove take ids from get_list. It omits any mention of radiusKm, maxStores, and preferBanners, which are non-obvious pricing controls, and leaves remove/uncheck semantics to inference.

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 specific verbs and resource: "Add items to, remove items from, or tick items on the user's grocery list by hand," and immediately differentiates itself from update_meals for meal-linked ingredients. An agent knows exactly what this tool mutates without opening the schema.

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?

It names alternatives and the conditions that select them: use item ids from get_list, use update_meals for a meal's ingredients so they stay linked, and offer record_purchases after a shop. The clear:"checked" vs clear:"all" cases are explicitly tied to post-shop vs full-reset scenarios.

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

All Gaurmon 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?