Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
plan-to-eat-mcp

plan-to-eat-mcp

by alex-zwingli
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_recipes

List the user's whole recipe book (own + saved + queued + friend recipes), optionally filtered by title words, course, or ownership. Narrow with a filter when you can: the unfiltered book can run to well over a thousand rows.

Instructions

List the user's whole recipe book (own + saved + queued + friend recipes), optionally filtered by title words, course, or ownership. Narrow with a filter when you can: the unfiltered book can run to well over a thousand rows. Each row has id, title, owned, and whichever of course_title, cuisine_title, main_ingredient_title, tag_titles, total_time (minutes) and rating are set — empty ones are left out. Rows carry no ingredients, directions, description, servings or nutrition — call get_recipe on an id for those. Inactive, removed and hidden recipes are left out.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fullNoReturn every listing field (photo_url, created_at/updated_at, course_id etc., saved/queued/planned_only, stats_total_events), empty ones included. Several times larger; filter first.
courseNoCourse title, case-insensitive exact match, e.g. "Breakfast". list_courses has the names.
searchNoWords to find in the title, case-insensitive; every word must appear, in any order. "pork chive" matches "Juicy Pork & Chive Dumplings".
owned_onlyNoOnly the user's own recipes, not saved or queued ones from friends.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.8.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / course
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Course title, case-insensitive exact match, e.g. \"Breakfast\". list_courses has the names.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / full
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Return every listing field (photo_url, created_at/updated_at, course_id etc., saved/queued/planned_only, stats_total_events), empty ones included. Several times larger; filter first.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / owned_only
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Only the user's own recipes, not saved or queued ones from friends.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / search
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Words to find in the title, case-insensitive; every word must appear, in any order. \"pork chive\" matches \"Juicy Pork & Chive Dumplings\".",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses the volume risk of the unfiltered call, the exclusion of inactive/removed/hidden recipes, the omission of empty fields from rows, and exactly which heavy fields (ingredients, directions, servings, nutrition) are absent. Those are precisely the surprises an agent would otherwise hit.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose and scope first, then the performance caveat, then row shape, then the hand-off to get_recipe. Front-loaded and waste-free despite covering a lot of ground.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating the exact row fields returned and what is deliberately excluded. An agent knows both how to call it and what it will get back.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter is documented with examples and matching rules, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description only summarizes "title words, course, or ownership" and doesn't even mention the `full` flag, so it adds little per-parameter meaning beyond what is structured.

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 plus the exact scope of the collection (own + saved + queued + friend recipes) and the available narrowing dimensions. It also distinguishes itself from get_recipe, which returns the detail fields this tool omits, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

"Narrow with a filter when you can: the unfiltered book can run to well over a thousand rows" gives an explicit when-to-use constraint, and "call get_recipe on an id for those" names the alternative and the condition that routes to it. The schema further points at list_courses for valid course names.

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