update_recipeEdit a stored recipe: fix an ingredient, add steps, change servings, tags, image or source. Only provided fields change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| steps | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| servings | No | ||
| image_url | No | ||
| recipe_id | Yes | ||
| source_url | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| ingredients | 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 of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a critical behavior: only provided fields change, preventing the assumption that omitted fields are cleared. It does not mention return values, permission requirements, validation behavior, or failure modes, but the key mutation semantics are covered.
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 a single focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, lists representative fields, and ends with the important partial-update guarantee. There is no filler or redundancy.
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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is thin. It does not cover all parameter semantics, return behavior, error conditions, or how this tool relates to sibling recipe-editing tools, leaving an agent with meaningful gaps when deciding how to call 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It names many of them (ingredients, steps, servings, tags, image, source) and clarifies partial-update semantics, but it omits the title and description fields and does not explain the ingredient object structure beyond what the schema already provides.
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 edits an existing stored recipe and lists several mutable fields, making the intent easy to grasp. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_ingredients, which also relates to editing recipe-related data, so it falls short of full distinction.
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 'Edit a stored recipe' implies this is for modifying existing recipes rather than creating or importing one, and 'Only provided fields change' gives important update behavior. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as import_recipe or update_ingredients.
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.