record_grocery_orderLog the placed order and (by default) add purchased items to ingredients on hand. Moves the week to 'ordered'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| store | No | ||
| total | No | ||
| week_id | No | ||
| order_ref | No | ||
| add_to_on_hand | 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 does disclose the main side effects: logging, updating on-hand ingredients by default, and changing week status. It could mention reversibility or permission requirements, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.
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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by side effects. It is not bloated, though the brevity trades away parameter-level detail that would make the whole definition more self-sufficient.
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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers only the general behavior and one side effect. An agent lacks enough information about how week_id is determined, what order_ref/store/total mean, and what success looks like, so the context is incomplete.
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, but it only hints at 'items' through 'add purchased items to ingredients on hand'. It does not clarify the meaning, format, or optionality of store, total, week_id, order_ref, or the add_to_on_hand switching behavior beyond the default.
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 ('Log') with a clear resource ('placed order') and names two concrete state effects (add purchased items to ingredients, move week to 'ordered'). This distinguishes it from the sibling assemble_online_grocery_order, which is about building an order rather than recording a completed one.
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 phrase 'placed order' clearly signals this is the tool for recording an order that has already been placed, and 'moves the week to ordered' indicates the state transition it triggers. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to route the agent.
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.