run_agent_chefThe one call to make when the user says 'run agent chef' (or run the app / plan dinner / do the weekly thing). Returns the operating manual plus the checklist of tool calls that are due right now. Execute them in order, then call next_actions again until it returns no actions. Stop before any checkout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 does disclose the key behavioral aspects: what it returns, the required follow-up loop, and the checkout guardrail. It does not explicitly mention whether the tool itself has side effects or whether executing the checklist mutates state, but the operational flow is clearly described.
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 three dense, purposeful sentences with no filler. It front-loads the trigger phrase, states the return payload, and gives the follow-up loop, earning its place for every sentence.
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?
Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description covers what the call returns, how to process it, and when to stop. For a zero-parameter orchestration entry point, this is sufficient guidance for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already covers the empty parameter set, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter syntax and focuses on the invocation trigger and return behavior.
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 states the tool is the orchestration entry point for 'run agent chef' and its common variants, and that it returns an operating manual plus a checklist of due tool calls. This distinguishes it from siblings like next_actions, which is named as the follow-up rather than the entry point.
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 explicit trigger phrases ('run agent chef', 'run the app', 'plan dinner', 'do the weekly thing') and specifies the exact execution protocol: execute returned calls in order, loop on next_actions until none remain, and stop before checkout. This leaves little ambiguity about when and how to use it.
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.