plan-to-eat-mcp

update_planner_entry_text

Update the text of a planner note or ingredient entry by specifying its ID and new description.

Instructions

Update the text of a note or ingredient planner entry. Note: uses the description field on the wire even though entries are created with title.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "description": "<description>"
    },
    "name": "update_planner_entry_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`description`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Despite lacking annotations, the description exposes a key field-name quirk: it uses 'description' on the wire while entries are created with 'title'. This is valuable behavioral transparency beyond the basic action.

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?

Very concise: one clear sentence plus a focused note. No redundant wording, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple update operation, the description covers the essential behavior and the important field-name quirk, though it omits details about return values or potential errors. Still, the tool is simple enough that the description is sufficiently complete.

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 has no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It partially does by indicating 'text' and the field-name note, but it does not explicitly explain that 'id' is the entry identifier or that 'description' carries the new text.

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?

Clearly states the action (update text) and the target (note or ingredient planner entry), distinguishing it from related tools like add_planner_note or update_planner_options.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides clear context for when to use this tool (to change text of an existing note or ingredient entry), though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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