Recall Kitchen

signup

Create a Recall Kitchen account and API key from an email. No API key or x402 payment required. Requires accept_terms true (Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and API Terms at https://recallkitchen.com/terms and https://recallkitchen.com/api-terms). The key is returned once. Unverified accounts have lower rate limits (60 tool calls/hour, 400/day, one key) and can add a few watch patterns. Sign in at https://app.recallkitchen.com with the same email to verify, raise limits, and add inventory. Does not re-issue a key if the email already has an account.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	optional display name
`email`	Yes	email address for the new account
`accept_terms`	Yes	must be true: the person agrees to the Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and API Terms at https://recallkitchen.com/terms

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes
`key_id`	Yes
`limits`	Yes
`api_key`	Yes
`message`	Yes
`user_id`	Yes
`email_verified`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / accept_terms

Added value: +{
+  "description": "must be true: the person agrees to the Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and API Terms at https://recallkitchen.com/terms",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "email"
-]New value: +[
+  "email",
+  "accept_terms"
+]

First observedSep 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only indicate mutating behavior, so the description carries the burden and does so exceptionally well. It discloses that the key is returned once, unverified accounts have lower rate limits, verification raises limits, and existing accounts will not get a re-issued key. This gives an agent a realistic model of the operation's side effects.

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 substantive but every sentence earns its place: creation, auth requirements, legal terms, key-return behavior, rate limits, verification path, and the non-reissue caveat. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and organized logically.

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?

Complete for an account-creation tool. It covers prerequisites, legal acceptance, expected limits, post-signup verification, and a key edge case. An output schema exists so return-value details are not the description's responsibility. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics: the email is the account identifier, accept_terms must be true for legal agreement, and no existing API key or x402 payment is needed. It does not discuss the optional name parameter, but the schema already documents that adequately.

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 action and resource: 'Create a Recall Kitchen account and API key from an email.' It also distinguishes itself from authenticated sibling tools by noting 'No API key or x402 payment required,' making it clear this is the bootstrap/signup entry point rather than a key-management operation.

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?

Provides clear context that this is for new accounts or unverified accounts, with verification instructions via the web app. It also gives an exclusion: 'Does not re-issue a key if the email already has an account.' It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling like create_api_key as the alternative for existing users, so it loses a point.

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

All Recall Kitchen 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?