Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

myhotlunchbox-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mhlb_create_student

Create a new student on your My Hot Lunchbox account by submitting a filled student form; a confirmation preview appears for your approval before the write is executed.

Instructions

Add a student to the account. Call mhlb_new_student_form first and send that model back with the fields filled in. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE). NOTE: this write is UNVERIFIED — its request shape was derived from the web app’s compiled API client but has not been exercised against a live account. Inspect the confirmation preview before approving it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
studentYesThe student model, as returned by mhlb_get_student_form / mhlb_new_student_form, with your edits applied.
confirmTokenNoONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmToken
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 \"confirmation-required\" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description warns that this write is UNVERIFIED and may not match the real API, and tells the agent to inspect the confirmation preview before approving. It also reveals the two-phase behavior where the first call returns a preview and confirmToken in non-elicitation clients.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the action, the form prerequisite, the confirmation behavior, and the unverified warning. The warning is placed at the end but the critical operational steps are front-loaded.

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?

For a mutating tool with no output schema and only basic annotations, the description covers the required pre-call step, the confirmation protocol, the repeat-token flow, and the unverified risk. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and cautiously.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow meaning: the student object must come from the form tool with edits applied, and confirmToken must not be invented or reused. Most of this is complementary to the schema rather than purely redundant.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Add a student to the account') and distinguishes the tool's write role by naming mhlb_new_student_form as the source of the model to submit. This clearly separates it from sibling get/update/delete student tools.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite workflow: call mhlb_new_student_form first, fill the model, then send it back. It also gives precise when-to-use guidance for the confirmation fallback, including that a repeat call with confirmToken proceeds only after user approval.

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