get_current_weekWhere the cycle stands: latest week + status (voting/selected/ordered/done), candidates with tallies, who has/hasn't voted, selected recipes, pending_feedback. Call this first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| week_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it usefully discloses the tool's behavior by enumerating the returned state: status values, tallies, participation, selected recipes, and pending_feedback. It also gives the status enum, which helps an agent interpret results. It stops short of explicitly saying the call has no side effects, but 'where the cycle stands' strongly signals a read-only query.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with a colon introducing a compact list of returned data, plus a short directive. Every element adds information and there is no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only orientation tool with no output schema, the description gives a detailed inventory of what the agent will receive and tells it to call the tool first. The main gap is the unexplained optional week_id parameter, but since it is not required, the tool can still be invoked correctly without it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has a single optional week_id parameter with zero description coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent cannot tell whether to supply a week_id, what format it takes, or how omission changes results. The phrase 'latest week' provides only a weak default-behavior hint.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear retrieve-and-orient purpose: 'Where the cycle stands' followed by the exact items returned (latest week, status, candidates, tallies, voters, selected recipes, pending_feedback). It goes well beyond the title and the 'latest week' framing distinguishes it from the 'past' sibling tools, though it doesn't name them explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Call this first' is explicit guidance on when to invoke the tool, implying it should precede cycle-mutation or follow-up tools. It provides clear context but does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools such as get_past_recipes or get_past_votes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target a distinct resource and action, with detailed descriptions that clarify boundaries. The main confusable pair is run_agent_chef vs next_actions, which both return the due-action checklist and operating instructions, differing only by trigger context. propose_recipes vs add_candidates are also related but clearly separated by phase (initiating a cycle vs appending during feedback).
The overwhelming majority follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_, update_, set_, add_, record_, remove_), which is highly predictable. Minor deviations include next_actions being a bare noun phrase rather than get_next_actions, and favorite_recipe using 'favorite' as a verb instead of something like toggle_favorite.
At 34 tools, the surface is heavy for an agent to select from, exceeding the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. The domain is genuinely broad, but several utility and meta tools (dismiss_setup_checklist, record_schedule, get_connected_agents, get_instructions) and overlapping entry points (run_agent_chef, next_actions) inflate the count and could be consolidated without losing capability.
The full weekly lifecycle is covered end-to-end: propose, vote, feedback, add candidates, lock in, shop, order, cook, rate, and mark done. Recipe, member, ingredient, and preference management all have solid get/update/create coverage. Minor gaps include no way to delete a recipe, remove a candidate from an active ballot, or cancel a week beyond reopen_voting, but these are work-aroundable and don't create dead ends.