recipe-mcp-server

add_recipe

Add a recipe to your collection by specifying ingredients, steps, servings, and tags for later search, scaling, and shopping-list use.

Instructions

Add a recipe to the collection with ingredients, steps, servings and tags.

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "servings": "<servings>",
      "ingredients": "<ingredients>"
    },
    "name": "add_recipe"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	No
`steps`	No
`title`	Yes
`servings`	Yes	How many people the recipe serves
`ingredients`	Yes	At least one ingredient

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It does not disclose duplicate handling, validation rules, permissions, whether omitted optional fields are defaulted, or what the response contains after adding.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, even though the content is under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This is a five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should explain more about behavior and parameters. It leaves significant gaps around the required title, validation, duplicate behavior, and return values.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 40%, so the description needs to compensate but does not. It names ingredients, steps, servings, and tags, but omits the required title field and adds no detail about required versus optional parameters or ingredient object structure.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a recipe to the collection,' and lists the main content fields. It clearly distinguishes adding from sibling operations like list_recipes, get_recipe, or delete_recipe, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as scale_recipe or search_recipes, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is that it creates a new recipe, which an agent could infer from the verb alone.

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

Deploy Server