Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

myhotlunchbox-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mhlb_create_student

Add a student to your My Hot Lunchbox account by submitting a completed student form model; a confirmation preview must be approved before the write proceeds.

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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
studentYesThe student model — the `data` object 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. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.7
    • changedInput schema / properties / student / description
      Previous value: -"The student model, as returned by mhlb_get_student_form / mhlb_new_student_form, with your edits applied."New value: +"The student model — the `data` object returned by mhlb_get_student_form / mhlb_new_student_form — with your edits applied."
  2. 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"
+}
  3. 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"
  4. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing that the write is UNVERIFIED against a live account, that a confirmation gate exists, how the confirmToken fallback works, and that the preview should be inspected before approving.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action and prerequisite, then confirmation behavior, then the UNVERIFIED caveat. Slightly dense with parenthetical detail, but every sentence carries information an agent needs before invoking.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the phase-1 "confirmation-required" response and confirmToken round-trip, so the agent knows what to expect back. Nothing material is missing for a nested-object write tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value: it explains that `student` is the `data` object returned by mhlb_new_student_form with edits applied, and that confirmToken is only for the no-elicitation fallback and must never be invented or reused.

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 ("Add a student to the account") and immediately disambiguates from the update/delete siblings by positioning it as a create flow fed by a form model. An agent can tell what this does without opening the 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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite sibling (call mhlb_new_student_form first and send that model back), and spells out the confirmation branch: elicitation where supported, otherwise a preview + confirmToken two-step with a pointer to MCP_CONFIRM_MODE.

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