rate_recipeRecord post-cook feedback (1-5 + comment) for a member. When every selected recipe of that week has feedback the week becomes 'done'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rating | Yes | ||
| comment | No | ||
| recipe_id | Yes | ||
| member_name | Yes |
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the side effect that a week becomes 'done' when all selected recipes have feedback. However, it does not disclose whether existing feedback is overwritten, whether the recipe must be one of the current week's selected recipes, or any authorization or error behavior.
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 two concise sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and adds a relevant side effect. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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 write operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., recipe must be in the current week's selected set), overwrite semantics, and error conditions. The core action and the week-done behavior are stated, but an agent may still be uncertain about valid inputs and state changes.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the rating scale (1-5), mentions comment, and indicates a member association, but does not explicitly describe recipe_id or the exact semantics of member_name (e.g., name vs. ID). The property names are fairly self-explanatory, providing partial compensation.
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 uses a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('post-cook feedback (1-5 + comment) for a member'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It further distinguishes itself from siblings like add_ballot_feedback by specifying 'post-cook', making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description provides clear context: this is for recording feedback after cooking a recipe, and mentions the week-done condition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'post-cook' framing makes the intended usage clear relative to other feedback-related tools.
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.