Add or update a WeekPlan ingredient by supplying its Dutch name and unit; a stable slug ID is generated automatically for use in recipes.
Add or update an ingredient. Creates a stable slug ID from the name. Always use Dutch for the name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Ingredient name | |
| unit | Yes | Unit of measurement (e.g. g, ml, pcs) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds real behavioral context beyond the idempotentHint annotation: a stable slug ID is derived from the name, and an existing ingredient is updated rather than duplicated. It does not disclose the return value or whether unit changes on an update trigger side effects, so the safety profile is only partially covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation, then the ID behavior, then the naming rule. Every sentence carries actionable information with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a small two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, ID generation, and the Dutch naming rule. The only gap is what the tool returns or how duplicate names are handled, which is minor given idempotentHint covers repeat calls.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuine constraint not present in the schema: names must be in Dutch. That directly affects how an agent should populate the required name parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
"Add or update an ingredient" names a specific verb set and resource, so the tool's operation is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling weekplan_edit_ingredient, leaving the upsert-vs-edit boundary unstated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus weekplan_edit_ingredient or weekplan_add_recipe. The phrase "Add or update" faintly implies upsert semantics, but no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.