Delete a recipe from WeekPlan by its ID. Use this action to remove outdated or unwanted recipes when managing meal plans via the MCP server.
Delete a recipe by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Recipe id to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to ingredients/meal plans, or whether a confirmation is required. For an irreversible mutation the extra context would be valuable and is absent.
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?
A single six-word sentence with the verb and key front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though that efficiency comes partly from omitting information rather than from tight writing.
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?
The tool is simple — one required param, no nested objects, no output schema — and destructiveHint covers the safety signal, so the description is minimally adequate. The remaining gap is the consequences of deletion, which an agent choosing between delete and edit would benefit from knowing.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented in the schema as 'Recipe id to delete', so the description's 'by id' adds no new information. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.
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?
States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (recipe) plus the addressing key (by id), so an agent can immediately tell it apart from weekplan_delete_ingredient. It stops short of saying anything about scope or effect, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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?
No indication of when to use this versus weekplan_edit_recipe or weekplan_list_recipes, no preconditions, no note that the id must come from a prior list call. The agent must infer all routing from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.