propose_recipesStart a weekly cycle: store the candidate recipes (normally 10) and return numbered candidates, a ballot_text (with a {vote_link} placeholder for message_group), and each member's vote link. Re-calling for the same week_start replaces the candidates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recipes | Yes | ||
| week_start | No | YYYY-MM-DD, defaults to today |
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 burden, and it discloses key side effects: candidates are stored, re-calling for the same week_start replaces them, and outputs include ballot_text and member vote links. It does not go into failure modes or auth/rate-limit details, but the core behavioral contract 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?
Three sentences with no filler; the main action and outputs are front-loaded, and the replacement caveat is placed at the end. Every sentence adds necessary information.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description sensibly states what is returned and the key replacement side effect. The main gaps are lack of guidance on when to use it versus similar candidate/ballot tools, but the core calling context is adequately covered.
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?
Schema coverage is only 50%, and the description helps by noting the typical candidate count ('normally 10') and tying replacement to week_start. It adds little beyond the schema for constructing recipes or using week_start, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.
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 clearly identifies the action (start a weekly cycle, store candidates) and the outputs (numbered candidates, ballot_text, and member vote links). It is specific enough to infer the tool's function, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings such as add_candidates or set_this_weeks_recipes, so it just misses the top score.
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 gives implied usage context ('Start a weekly cycle') and notes replacement behavior for the same week_start, which tells when re-calling is safe. However, it never states when to prefer this over sibling tools like add_candidates or set_this_weeks_recipes, nor lists exclusions.
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.