FeastFlow cooking times

Turkey cooking time

turkey_cooking_time

Read-onlyIdempotent

How long to roast a turkey by weight: cooking time, oven temperature, resting time and the temperature it must reach. Covers a whole turkey, a crown (breast on the bone) or a boneless breast joint, with UK (British Turkey, 190°C) or US (USDA, 325°F) times. Give a serving time to get when it goes in the oven.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "weight": "<weight>"
    },
    "name": "turkey_cooking_time"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cut`	No	whole (default), crown, or breast for a boneless joint or roll.
`unit`	No	kg (default) or lb.
`method`	No	uk: 190°C (170°C fan), 375°F. usda: 325°F (165°C). Defaults to usda when the weight is in lb, otherwise uk.
`weight`	Yes	Weight of the meat, in the unit given by unit.
`stuffed`	No	A whole bird stuffed in the cavity (USDA times only; for UK times, weigh it with the stuffing).
`serve_time`	No	Optional serving time as HH:MM in 24-hour time, e.g. 14:00. When given, the answer says when it goes in the oven.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description adds real context beyond them: the two regulatory time sources (British Turkey at 190°C vs USDA at 325°F) and the fact that results include resting time and a target temperature, not just minutes. It stops short of describing the response format or what happens with unusual weights.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the return values before the input hint. Dense but every clause carries information; only the closing serving-time sentence could be slightly trimmed.

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?

With six optional-heavy parameters but no output schema, the description does the necessary work by enumerating what the answer contains (time, oven temp, resting time, target temp, and oven-in time when serve_time is given). Missing only edge-case behavior, which is minor for a read-only lookup tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter already carries a description and enum values, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds modest value by naming the cuts and the UK/US method framing, but the per-parameter detail (defaults, HH:MM format, stuffing rule) lives in the schema rather than the description.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ('how long to roast a turkey by weight') and enumerates the outputs: cooking time, oven temperature, resting time and target internal temperature. It clearly is not the thawing or side-dish tool, though it never names siblings like roast_cooking_time, so an agent must infer that this one is turkey-specific.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the cuts covered (whole, crown, boneless breast) and the UK/US time sources tell the agent which inputs fit, and 'give a serving time' hints at the optional parameter. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and no mention of when to reach for roast_cooking_time or turkey_thawing_time instead.

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

All FeastFlow cooking times tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?