plan-to-eat-mcp

find_planned_dates

Check if a recipe is already planned within a date range by retrieving its scheduled dates.

Instructions

Find planner events for a given recipe, optionally constrained to a date range. Useful for "is this recipe already planned this week?" checks before scheduling.

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": "find_planned_dates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`end_date`	No
`recipe_id`	Yes
`start_date`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey the behavior. The word 'find' indicates a read operation, and the description is straightforward. It does not explicitly state side effects, but none are expected. It could mention what is returned, but for a simple lookup it is sufficiently transparent.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, concise and free of fluff. It directly states the function and a use case without redundant details.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and when to use it. The scope (finding events for a recipe, optionally within a date range) is fully described, and the use case adds practical context. No critical information is missing.

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?

The description links 'given recipe' to recipe_id and 'date range' to start_date and end_date, providing meaning for all three parameters. It also indicates the optionality of the date range. Since the schema provides no per-parameter descriptions, this coverage is valuable and complete.

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?

The description clearly states it finds planner events for a given recipe with an optional date range. It is specific about the resource (planner events) and the qualifier (recipe and date range), and it differentiates from sibling tools like list_planner_events and get_planner_week by focusing on a particular recipe.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It provides a concrete use case: checking if a recipe is already planned this week before scheduling. This gives clear context on when to use the tool, and the optional date range is implied by 'optionally constrained'.

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