set_voting_deadlineOne-off override of when the current ballot closes: an ISO timestamp, or extend_hours from the current deadline. Normally the deadline comes from the household schedule (vote_close_day/time); changing those via update_recipe_preferences re-syncs the current week.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| week_id | No | ||
| closes_at | No | ISO 8601, e.g. 2026-09-09T18:00:00-07:00 | |
| extend_hours | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the one-off nature, the relative extend_hours behavior, and how update_recipe_preferences re-syncs the current week. It does not state whether closes_at and extend_hours are mutually exclusive or whether week_id is required.
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 wasted words. The core override behavior is front-loaded, and the schedule re-sync caveat is placed where it clarifies the tool's scope.
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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and most parameter semantics well. The main gap is not explicitly stating that week_id is needed and that exactly one of closes_at or extend_hours should be provided.
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 33%, but the description adds meaning for closes_at ('ISO timestamp') and extend_hours ('from the current deadline'). week_id is left unexplained, though its purpose is reasonably inferable from context.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'One-off override of when the current ballot closes.' This clearly distinguishes it from normal schedule-driven deadline changes and from sibling tools like reopen_voting.
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?
Explicitly frames when to use this tool: for a one-off override of the current ballot close. It also names the alternative path, update_recipe_preferences, for changing the household schedule that normally controls the deadline.
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.