Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

myhotlunchbox-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mhlb_update_order

Replace an existing school lunch order with edited quantities and options. Retrieve the current order first, then call again with changes after reviewing the confirmation preview.

Instructions

Change an existing lunch order. Call mhlb_get_order first and send that model back with your edits — the endpoint replaces the whole order. 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
orderYesThe order model, as returned by mhlb_get_order_form / mhlb_get_order, with quantities and options edited.
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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations only mark it as a write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description carries the real burden and does so thoroughly: whole-order replacement semantics, the dual confirmation paths (client prompt vs. preview+confirmToken fallback), and the critically honest UNVERIFIED warning that the request shape was reverse-engineered from a compiled API client and never exercised against a live account. This materially changes how an agent should behave (inspect preview 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Five sentences, zero filler, with critical operational facts front-loaded: purpose, then prerequisite workflow, then confirmation mechanics, then the risk warning. The UNVERIFIED note is flagged with a clear 'NOTE:' marker. For a write tool with a confirmation flow and a schema, this density is justified — every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a complex write operation with a nested object param, no output schema, and a subtle two-step confirmation flow — the description covers all of it: the operation semantics, the prerequisite read call, both confirmation paths, the phase-1 response shape ('preview and a confirmToken'), and the unverified risk. The schema covers the remaining parameter details at 100%, so nothing an agent needs to invoke correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 — the schema already documents both the order model and the confirmToken protocol well. The description adds value by explaining the replace-the-whole-order workflow ('send that model back with your edits') and by spelling out the token's lifecycle rules (never on first call, never invented, never reused) in the context of the two-step fallback, which helps an agent know when the parameter is even relevant.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Change an existing lunch order.' It goes further and distinguishes this update from sibling create/delete/unsubscribe operations by stating the replace-whole-order semantics ('the endpoint replaces the whole order'), so an agent can tell it apart from mhlb_create_order, mhlb_delete_order, and mhlb_unsubscribe_order without opening their schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: 'Call mhlb_get_order first and send that model back with your edits,' which is concrete when-to-use guidance. It also prescribes the confirmation sequence and warns against passing confirmToken on the first call. It does not explicitly contrast with mhlb_create_order for new orders, but 'existing lunch order' plus the get_order prerequisite make the intended use clear.

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