import_recipeFetch a recipe page (most cooking sites) and save it to the library with its real photo, ingredients, and steps. Returns the recipe; pass its recipe_id to propose_recipes or add_candidates to put it on a ballot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| tags | No | Extra tags to add | |
| favorite | 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 available, the description carries the disclosure burden and does state the key behaviors: fetching, saving, and returning the recipe. It also notes the 'most cooking sites' limitation and that the saved record includes real photo, ingredients, and steps. It does not discuss permissions, duplicates, or failure modes, but the core side effect is clear.
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?
Two sentences with no filler; the action statement is front-loaded and the second sentence gives return and next-step guidance. Every clause earns its place.
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 tool with no output schema, the description usefully states that the return value is a recipe with a recipe_id and how to use it next. It could add a note on unsupported sites or duplicate handling, but the essential calling context is present.
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 description helps clarify url by naming it as the page to fetch, but it adds nothing beyond the schema for tags and says nothing about favorite. Since schema description coverage is only 33%, the description does not fully compensate for the undocumented optional parameters.
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 opens with a specific action ('Fetch a recipe page') and target resource ('save it to the library') and lists what gets captured (photo, ingredients, steps). It is clearly distinct from siblings like update_recipe or search_recipes and even mentions the downstream ballot tools.
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?
It clearly implies when to use the tool (when a recipe URL needs to be added to the library) and gives workflow guidance by telling the agent to pass the returned recipe_id to propose_recipes or add_candidates. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
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.