set_this_weeks_recipesLock in the winners. With no recipe_ids, picks the top N (recipes_per_week) by votes, ties broken by ballot order. Moves the week to 'selected' and returns the shopping list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| week_id | No | ||
| recipe_ids | 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 behavioral disclosure burden and largely succeeds. It reveals the default selection rule (top N by votes, ties broken by ballot order), the state mutation ('Moves the week to selected'), and the return value (shopping list). It does not mention what happens if the week is already selected or whether recipe_ids override the vote-based selection, but core behavior is 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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then efficiently covers default behavior, state change, and return value.
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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, the optional-parameter default, state transition, and returned shopping list. The main gaps are the exact effect of providing recipe_ids and the meaning/format of week_id, but the core invocation path is sufficiently clear.
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 does explain the meaning of omitting recipe_ids and the tie-breaking behavior, but it never describes week_id and only implies that supplying recipe_ids changes the selection path. This is partial compensation rather than full parameter documentation.
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 what the tool does: it finalizes this week's recipe selection ('Lock in the winners'), with a concrete default behavior and a visible state change ('Moves the week to selected'). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like propose_recipes or reopen_voting, but the selection/finalization action is still distinct and identifiable.
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 implies this tool is used after voting to finalize the week's recipe choices, especially when no recipe_ids are given. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against related tools such as propose_recipes or reopen_voting.
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.