Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
handle-mcp

handle-mcp

by JuliusTorpLarsenPrivat
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

gem_madplan

Destructive

Save a weekly meal plan with an exact shopping list for approval, returning a reference code and SMS text without changing the basket.

Instructions

Gem ugens madplan og den præcise indkøbsliste til godkendelse. Giver en kode (fx UGE-4821) og en kort sms_tekst. Ændrer ikke kurven. butik: nemlig, bilka eller begge (så har hver linje "butik"). retter: fx ["Man: Ovnbagt laks med kartofler", "Tir: ..."]. linjer: de varer du har valgt: [{"vare_id": "5026540", "navn": "Hakket grisekød 8-12%", "antal": 2, "pris": 70.0}], hvor antal er antal pakker og pris linjens samlede pris. gebyrer: alle gebyrer i kr. valg: ekstra valg, som madplanens forløb beskriver (fx {"ugebudget_kr": 1286}). Vis planen og sms_tekst for brugeren bagefter.

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": {
      "butik": "<butik>",
      "retter": "<retter>",
      "linjer": "<linjer>"
    },
    "name": "gem_madplan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNo
valgNo
butikYes
linjerYes
retterYes
gebyrerNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.37.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the write/destructive profile, and the description adds real context beyond them: a plan code is issued, an sms_tekst is produced, the basket is left untouched, and the result must be surfaced to the user. It does not say whether an existing saved plan is overwritten, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the parameter notes are compact and example-driven rather than prose-heavy. The backtick-per-parameter layout is dense but each line carries information an agent needs, so little is wasted.

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 six-parameter write tool with no output schema, the definition covers the parameters, the generated code, the follow-up action, and the non-effect on the basket. The main remaining gap is what happens to a previously saved plan and whether the returned code is the only output.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: `butik` gets its three valid values, `retter` gets a format example, `linjer` gets a complete item example plus the meaning of `antal` (packages) and `pris` (line total), and `valg` gets a concrete example. Only `note` is left unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: save the week's meal plan plus the exact shopping list for approval. It also explicitly scopes the side effect with 'Ændrer ikke kurven', which separates it from basket-mutating siblings such as fyld_kurv_fra_madplan without naming them.

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?

The description makes the context clear: this is a submission-for-approval step that produces a code and an sms_tekst, and it ends with an explicit post-call instruction to show the plan to the user. It does not name an alternative tool or state when-not to use it, so it stops 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools