Create a meal recipe with a title and meal category so you can assign dishes to your Skylight Calendar meal plan, plus optional description details.
Create a meal recipe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| frameId | No | ||
| summary | Yes | Recipe title. | |
| description | No | ||
| meal_category_id | Yes | Meal category id (from list_meal_categories, required). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.7.1Input schema / properties / meal_category_id / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / meal_category_id / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of what gets persisted, whether the recipe lands on a specific frame, or any permission/rate considerations for this open-world write.
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?
It is a single clean sentence with no waste, but the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy. A four-parameter creation tool needs more than five words.
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 creation tool with no output schema and two undocumented parameters, the description leaves too much unstated — where the recipe is created (frameId), what happens to it afterward, and how it relates to meal categories and meal planning. An agent would be calling this nearly blind.
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 50%: summary and meal_category_id are documented in the schema, while frameId and description are undocumented everywhere. With half the parameters lacking semantics, the description is required to compensate and instead adds zero parameter information.
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?
The description gives a verb and resource ('Create a meal recipe'), so the intent is legible, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name skylight_create_recipe. It offers no differentiation from siblings like skylight_update_recipe, skylight_get_recipe, or skylight_plan_meal, so an agent must infer which recipe operation applies.
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 guidance on when to use this versus skylight_update_recipe, skylight_plan_meal, or the grocery-list path. The schema at least hints that meal_category_id comes from list_meal_categories, but the description itself supplies no prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.