Strega Recipes

A cook's public profile

cook_profile

Idempotent

Read a cook's public Strega page, or change the signed-in cook's own. Use when the cook asks "who shared this?", "show me more from this cook", "what's on my profile?", or wants their name, about me, links or handle changed. Pass handle (any recipe's shared_by.handle) to read that page; nothing to read their own (signed in). To change their own, pass update with only the fields to change, after telling them exactly what will change and getting a yes (cook_confirmed). Never write about-me text for them. Returns name, about, links and public recipes with urls; ai_chef true means an AI chef persona. Nothing private is ever on a profile.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`handle`	No	Whose page to read, e.g. "andrew_rexroad" (with or without @). Omit for the signed-in cook's own
`update`	No	Changes to the signed-in cook's own profile; interests and links replace the saved lists. A changed handle redirects for 90 days. photo: "google" copies the account photo, null removes it
`cook_confirmed`	No	Required with update: true only after the cook said yes to this exact change

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	Changing: the cook's public page
`asks`	No	At most one question for the cook, with a home in preferences
`cook`	No	Reading: the public page
`guide`	No	How to answer this turn: rules for you, the assistant, not words for the cook. Follow them before anything else here (#258)
`notices`	No	At most one note about Strega to pass on when there's room (one per cook per week; off with workflow whats_new: off)
`profile`	No	Changing: the cook's own profile as saved
`updated`	No	Changing: the fields that changed
`adjusted`	No	Defaults this call took instead of failing (#243): an unknown units word, a number out of range, a diet word read as the closest one Strega knows. Mention it when it changes what the cook gets
`next_steps`	No	Suggestions, best first, each with its tool, args and effect. Strega suggests the top one in one sentence; whether any runs is decided by what the cook asks in the conversation and your confirmation rules, never by the wording here

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the confirmation protocol (cook_confirmed after saying yes), a prohibition ('Never write about-me text for them'), privacy guarantees ('Nothing private is ever on a profile'), and the ai_chef return flag. These are substantive behavioral facts the annotations do not convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core read/write split, and every sentence carries information (triggers, handle sourcing, confirmation, return flags, privacy). It is dense and packs many clauses into one block, slightly reducing scannability, but nothing is filler.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description nonetheless summarizes returns (name, about, links, public recipes with urls, ai_chef) and adds the privacy and confirmation context an agent needs. Nothing required 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 real intent-level guidance: handle sourced from shared_by.handle or omitted for self, and update should pass 'only the fields to change' gated on cook_confirmed. It stops short of covering every field's semantics (delegated to the already-rich schema), so a 4 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Read a cook's public Strega page, or change the signed-in cook's own') and covers both the read and write modes precisely. An agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like update_recipe or get_my_kitchen 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?

Provides concrete trigger phrases ('who shared this?', 'show me more from this cook'), explicitly states how to select a read of another cook (pass handle from any recipe's shared_by.handle) vs the signed-in cook's own (omit handle), and spells out the update precondition (tell them what will change, get a yes). Exclusions and alternatives are clear.

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

All Strega Recipes 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?