recipe-mcp-server

scale_recipe

Adjust recipe ingredient amounts to a new serving count for a chosen cook date so you can cook the right quantity without recalculating by hand.

Instructions

Scale a recipe to a new serving count for a cook-date; amounts rescaled.

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>",
      "target_servings": "<target_servings>"
    },
    "name": "scale_recipe"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`recipe_id`	Yes
`target_servings`	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. It does not disclose whether scaling persists to the stored recipe or is a read-only computation, how fractional amounts or units are rounded, or what the caller receives back — all critical for a mutation-ambiguous tool.

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?

A single compact sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted wording. The brevity is appropriate, though the dangling "cook-date" clause is dead weight that adds confusion rather than information.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage on both parameters, the description should explain side effects, return shape, and parameter formats. It does none of these, leaving an agent unable to call the tool confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only loosely does: "recipe" and "serving count" map to recipe_id and target_servings, but no format, constraints, or valid ranges are given. Worse, "cook-date" implies a parameter that does not exist in the schema, which can mislead the agent.

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?

"Scale a recipe to a new serving count" states a specific verb and resource, and it is clearly distinct from siblings like get_recipe or add_recipe. The trailing "for a cook-date" is unexplained and refers to nothing in the schema, which slightly muddies an otherwise clear purpose.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether this should be used instead of get_recipe when a cook wants different portions, or whether the scaled result is stored. The agent must infer the trigger condition entirely.

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

Deploy Server