ask.recipes

Rename or describe a cookbook

update_cookbook

DestructiveIdempotent

Rename a cookbook, change its description, or share it with the household, for "call it Sunday Roasts instead" or "share my Christmas cookbook with the family". Recipes stay where they are. The default cookbook stays personal.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	new name; leave empty to keep it
`shared`	No	true moves the cookbook to the household so every member sees it, false makes it personal to this user again; leave out to keep it as is
`cookbook`	Yes	current name of the cookbook to change
`description`	No	new description; leave empty to keep it

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`shared`	No
`default`	No
`description`	No
`recipe_count`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 31, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / shared

Added value: +{
+  "description": "true moves the cookbook to the household so every member sees it, false makes it personal to this user again; leave out to keep it as is",
+  "type": [
+    "null",
+    "boolean"
+  ]
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / shared
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

Changed1 schema field changedOct 25, 2026
- removedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
AddedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With annotations marking this as a non-read-only, destructive, idempotent mutation, the description adds real non-annotated facts: recipes remain in place and the default cookbook stays personal. It does not explain the destructiveHint=true — nothing about what a rename might break (e.g., references, name collisions) or what the response contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences with the actions front-loaded and example phrasings that double as usage cues. Nothing is padded, though the quoted examples occupy space that a single terse clause could have covered.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, existing annotations, and an output schema, this covers the essentials: what changes, what does not, and one important constraint. The main residual gap is the unexplained destructive flag and any rename-collision behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already explains optional-vs-keep semantics for name, description, and shared. The description only implicitly maps its three operations to those parameters, adding little syntax or constraint detail beyond the 'default cookbook stays personal' note.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names three specific verbs (rename, change description, share) against one resource (cookbook), so it is immediately distinguishable from create_cookbook and delete_cookbook in the sibling list. The quoted example intents ('call it Sunday Roasts instead', 'share my Christmas cookbook') make the operation concrete.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is clear through the two example intents, and the closing sentences set scope boundaries (recipes are untouched, the default cookbook cannot be shared). It never explicitly names an alternative tool or says when not to use it, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ask.recipes tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.