Agent Chef

Rate a cooked recipe

rate_recipe

Destructive

Record a member's 1-5 rating and comment after cooking a recipe. Each member rates separately, and a newer rating replaces their older one without changing the week's status.

Instructions

Record post-cook feedback (1-5 + comment) for one member. Every member rates separately; a member's newer rating replaces their older one. Ratings never change the week's status.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "recipe_id": "<recipe_id>",
      "member_name": "<member_name>",
      "rating": "<rating>"
    },
    "name": "rate_recipe"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rating`	Yes
`comment`	No
`recipe_id`	Yes
`member_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`week`	No
`recipe`	Yes
`pending_feedback`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv0.1.1Oct 3, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / recipe / 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 / recipe / properties / is_public

Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "boolean",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / recipe / properties / public_url

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

addedOutput schema / properties / recipe / properties / source_recipe_id

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

changedOutput schema / properties / week / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": true,
-    "properties": {
-      "created_at": {
-        "type": [
-          "string",
-          "null"
-        ]
-      },
-      "id": {
-        "$ref": "#/properties/recipe/properties/id"
-      },
-      "status": {
-        "enum": [
-          "voting",
-          "selected",
-          "ordered",
-          "done"
-        ],
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "voting_closes_at": {
-        "type": [
-          "string",
-          "null"
-        ]
-      },
-      "week_start": {
-        "description": "YYYY-MM-DD",
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "id",
-      "week_start",
-      "status"
-    ],
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "properties": {
+      "created_at": {
+        "type": [
+          "string",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "id": {
+        "$ref": "#/properties/recipe/properties/id"
+      },
+      "share_url": {
+        "description": "Public page showing this week's winners",
+        "type": [
+          "string",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "status": {
+        "enum": [
+          "voting",
+          "selected",
+          "ordered",
+          "done"
+        ],
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "voting_closes_at": {
+        "type": [
+          "string",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "week_start": {
+        "description": "YYYY-MM-DD",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "id",
+      "week_start",
+      "status"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description usefully explains that this is replacement semantics ('a member's newer rating replaces their older one') and adds a genuine side-effect boundary ('Ratings never change the week's status'). It doesn't cover auth/validation failures, but it goes beyond what the annotations convey.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct rule (per-member, replacement, no status impact). Zero filler.

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 needn't be explained, and the description covers the key behavioral rules (replacement, isolation per member, no effect on week status). Only minor gaps remain around prerequisites and error conditions for a mutation tool.

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 must carry the load. It documents the rating scale and comment, and 'for one member' clarifies that member_name takes a single value per call, but recipe_id and the exact member identifier format are left to the schema's bare types.

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 (record) and resource (post-cook feedback: 1-5 rating + comment) scoped to one member. It clearly separates itself from sibling voting tools (add_vote, add_ballot_feedback) by framing this as post-cook feedback rather than pre-cook balloting.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Post-cook' implies the timing (after the recipe has been cooked), which is useful context for selecting this over voting tools. However, no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives are given, and nothing says a member must already exist or have cooked the recipe.

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