Agent Chef

Message the household

message_group

Send SMS/MMS or email to household members. '{vote_link}' in the message becomes each member's personal voting link. Channel 'auto' texts members with a phone and emails the rest. Providers now: {"sms":"dry-run","email":"dry-run"} (dry-run = logged only).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	No	What this message is; lets next_actions avoid repeats	custom
`channel`	No		auto
`message`	Yes
`subject`	No
`image_urls`	No
`member_names`	No	Limit to these members; default everyone

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does a good job by revealing that messages are currently dry-run only, that '{vote_link}' is replaced per recipient, and that channel 'auto' routes phone/email recipients differently. It leaves some gaps like authentication, error behavior, and actual send status, but the core side-effect profile 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and essential behavioral details packed efficiently into the next two. There is no filler or repeated schema information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must cover both invocation behavior and expected results. It explains the main sending behavior and dry-run mode but does not mention return values, prerequisites such as existing members/contact details, or how 'subject' and 'image_urls' are used, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds real meaning for 'message' via the '{vote_link}' placeholder and for 'channel' via the 'auto' routing rule, but 'subject', 'image_urls', and the 'kind' enum semantics remain under-explained in both schema and description.

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?

The description clearly states the action: sending SMS/MMS or email to household members. It also identifies the exact resource and mechanism, including the '{vote_link}' substitution and channel behavior, making it easy to distinguish from the sibling tools.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when the household needs to be messaged. It explains how channel 'auto' selects recipients by contact type, and notes the dry-run provider mode, giving agents practical guidance. It does not explicitly name excluded scenarios or alternatives, but no direct sibling appears to compete with this action.

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

All Agent Chef tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

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).

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?