Strega Recipes

Report a recipe, review, photo or profile

report_content

Idempotent

Flag a recipe, review, photo or a cook's profile for Strega's moderators: spam, offensive, unsafe as written, copied without permission, not a recipe, or something else. Use only when the cook asks ("report this review", "this recipe is dangerous"), in their words. Moderators review every report; nothing is hidden automatically.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The recipe slug, the review id, the photo URL, or the cook's handle for a profile
`kind`	Yes
`note`	No	What's wrong, in the cook's words
`reason`	Yes	spam: Spam or advertising; offensive: Offensive or hateful; unsafe: Unsafe to cook or eat as written; copyright: Copied without permission; not_recipe: Not a real recipe; other: Something else

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`asks`	No	At most one question for the cook, with a home in preferences
`guide`	No	How to answer this turn: rules for you, the assistant, not words for the cook. Follow them before anything else here (#258)
`target`	Yes	What the report points at, as the reporter sees it
`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)
`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
`duplicate`	Yes	True when this cook already had an open report on the item: nothing new was stored
`report_id`	Yes
`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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the crucial behavioral fact that 'Moderators review every report; nothing is hidden automatically' — i.e., the write creates a queued report, not an immediate takedown. It does not mention auth requirements or any rate/duplicate-report handling beyond the idempotentHint.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and targets, then the gating rule and the moderators-review guarantee. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant with the schema.

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?

With an output schema present and 75% param coverage, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly focuses on the human-review consequence of a non-read-only call. Minor gaps remain around whether a cook can report their own content and what happens on an invalid id.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 75% with both enums already documented in-schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's reason list mirrors the enum and 'in their words' mildly reinforces that the note should be a verbatim quote, but it adds no syntax or format detail for id or kind.

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 concrete verb ('Flag ... for Strega's moderators') plus the full set of target resources (recipe, review, photo, cook's profile), which no sibling tool covers. An agent can immediately distinguish this moderation tool from the CRUD/planning siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('Use only when the cook asks') with two representative utterances, which functions as both a when-to-use and a when-not-to-use rule. No sibling overlaps, so no alternative needs naming.

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?