recipe-mcp-server

delete_recipe

Delete a stored recipe by its ID to remove outdated or unwanted entries from your personal recipe collection.

Instructions

Delete a recipe by id.

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": {
      "recipe_id": "<recipe_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_recipe"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`recipe_id`	Yes

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?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it says nothing about whether deletion is permanent, what permissions are needed, or what happens if the id doesn't match a recipe. For a destructive operation this is a meaningful gap.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but there is no wasted wording.

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?

A destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter should do much more: state irreversibility, expected id format, and error behavior on unknown ids. The description supplies none of this.

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?

The single required parameter has 0% schema description coverage, yet the description only restates it as 'id' without indicating format (UUID, slug, numeric string) or where the agent would obtain a valid value. This leaves the parameter effectively undocumented.

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 ('Delete a recipe') plus the lookup key ('by id'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool acts on. The only shortfall is that it doesn't differentiate itself from siblings like get_recipe or list_recipes, though the delete verb already separates it from the read tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this instead of alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites such as confirming the recipe exists. The intent is inferable from the name, but nothing in the description actively routes the agent.

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

Deploy Server