Agent Chef

Update recipe preferences

update_recipe_preferences

Update household meal planning preferences and settings, including dietary preferences, grocery store, serving sizes, and voting schedule. Omitted fields remain unchanged.

Instructions

Update any subset of the preferences prompt and settings. Omitted fields are unchanged.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Household display name
`plan_day`	No
`servings`	No
`timezone`	No	IANA zone, e.g. America/Los_Angeles
`preferences`	No	Free-form prompt describing what the household likes/avoids. Replaces existing text.
`grocery_store`	No
`vote_close_day`	No	Weekday voting closes, e.g. wednesday
`vote_close_time`	No	Local time voting closes, HH:MM 24h, e.g. 18:00
`recipes_per_week`	No
`votes_per_member`	No
`shopping_preferences`	No	Free-form prompt for the grocery run: preferred brands, organic when possible, substitutions, store quirks. Replaces existing text.
`reminder_hours_before`	No	Send non-voters one reminder this many hours before voting closes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`plan_day`	Yes
`servings`	Yes
`timezone`	Yes
`preferences`	No
`grocery_store`	Yes
`agent_schedule`	No
`vote_close_day`	Yes
`vote_close_time`	Yes
`recipes_per_week`	Yes
`votes_per_member`	Yes
`shopping_preferences`	No
`agent_schedule_set_at`	No
`reminder_hours_before`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as a write but non-destructive operation; the description adds the valuable PATCH-like behavior that omitted fields are left untouched. This prevents an agent from assuming it must send all fields or that omissions will clear values.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the operation, scope, and the most important behavioral caveat with no wasted words.

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?

For a write tool with zero required parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core invocation rules: partial update and non-destructive omissions. The main gap is that it does not compensate for the five schema parameters lacking descriptions, but their names are mostly self-explanatory and the partial-update rule is the critical piece.

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?

The key parameter-level semantic, that any subset may be supplied and omitted fields are unchanged, is stated up front and applies across all 12 optional parameters. Schema coverage is only 58%, so this global guidance matters; individual undocumented params like plan_day and servings are still left to inference, keeping this from a 5.

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?

The description names a specific action ('Update') and resource ('recipe preferences') and scopes it precisely with 'any subset of the preferences prompt and settings.' It is immediately distinguishable from read-only siblings like get_recipe_preferences and from update_recipe.

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?

The phrase 'any subset' and 'Omitted fields are unchanged' clearly establishes that this is the tool to use for partial changes rather than full replacement. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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