fitatu-api

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Make a shopping list

get_shopping_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a shopping list for up to 14 days from planned, uneaten diary rows and recipe ingredients, aggregated by product and measure. It cannot account for what you already have or pack sizes.

Instructions

A shopping list for a range of up to 14 days, worked out from the rows planned in the diary and not ticked as eaten. products sums them per product and measure (product_id, name, measure_name, quantity of that measure, weight_g; weight_g is null when a row does not give it), with the ingredients of each planned recipe added for its portions; recipes lists those recipes (date, meal, recipe_id, name, portions, and expanded false when its ingredients could not be read or it is a premium recipe on an account without Fitatu Premium, so they are missing from products); other_items lists custom and other rows as they are. It cannot know what the user already has at home, pack sizes or anything not planned in the diary: say so. Start at today ("this week" is today to Sunday): rows on past days not ticked as eaten were usually eaten anyway. One request per day and one per recipe.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to_date`	Yes	Day as YYYY-MM-DD; when the user says today, yesterday, this week or a weekday, call get_today and count from its date.
`from_date`	Yes	Day as YYYY-MM-DD; when the user says today, yesterday, this week or a weekday, call get_today and count from its date.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes
`data`	No
`error`	No	describe_error() of what went wrong; docs/AGENTS.md, Results and errors.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: the 14-day cap, the 'one request per day and one per recipe' rate guidance, the unticked-row assumption, and explicit limitations (cannot know what the user has at home, pack sizes, unplanned items). This is richer than most read-only definitions.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

One dense run-on sentence packs the products/recipes/other_items explanation plus caveats into a wall of text, and the 'say so' instruction is grammatically stranded. It is front-loaded and information-rich, but the structure makes it hard to parse and the return-field detail is largely redundant with the output schema.

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?

The output schema exists, so explaining return fields is redundant, but the description still covers the critical limitations an agent needs before calling (no pantry awareness, no pack sizes, unticked-row assumption, date-range semantics). It is complete for correct invocation.

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% and both parameters are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description adds range semantics (up to 14 days, start at today) but no per-parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 resource (shopping list) and the exact derivation rule (rows planned in the diary not ticked as eaten, over up to 14 days). It does not name a sibling that is similar, but the derivation is distinctive enough to separate it from get_range_summary or get_day.

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?

Gives clear usage context: start at today, 'this week' means today to Sunday, and past unticked rows are assumed eaten. This tells the agent how to choose the date range. It does not name an alternative tool or say when not to use it, so it falls 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.