Agent Chef

Get past recipes

get_past_recipes

Read-only

Fetch past weekly recipe picks, including ratings and comments, to avoid repeats and learn which meals the household liked.

Instructions

Every recipe selected for a past week, newest first, with week, status, and ratings/comments. Use to avoid repeats and learn what landed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.1.1Oct 3, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / items / items / properties / image_generated

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Photo was generated by Agent Chef, so it is safe to show publicly",
+  "type": [
+    "boolean",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / items / items / properties / is_public
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "boolean",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / items / items / properties / public_url

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Indexable public page, when published",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / items / items / properties / source_recipe_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Set when this is the household's copy of a Community recipe",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds ordering (newest first) and the fields returned (week, status, ratings/comments), which is useful but modest, and it says nothing about how depth/history is bounded.

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?

One sentence with zero waste; the scope constraint comes first and the payload/ordering details follow. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and read-only annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the interaction between 'Every recipe' and the limit/pagination behavior, which an agent might need when the history is long.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does not mention the single 'limit' parameter at all — 'Every recipe' arguably implies an unbounded result while the schema caps it at a default of 30. The parameter name and default are self-explanatory enough in the schema that this is a marginal rather than fatal gap.

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 with scope ('Every recipe selected for a past week'), plus ordering ('newest first') and payload contents ('week, status, and ratings/comments'). This is enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_favorite_recipes, get_recipe, and get_current_week without opening a schema.

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?

'Use to avoid repeats and learn what landed' gives a clear, actionable reason to call it, which many sibling-history tools lack. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the explicit routing a 5 requires.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.