Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AnyList MCP Server

AnyList MCP Server

by cotlet-connect
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

anylist_status

Verify your Cotlet.dev account, available credits, and AnyList connection before using AI agents to manage grocery lists, recipes, and meal plans.

Instructions

Check that your Cotlet.dev account and AnyList are ready: account, credits and AnyList connection.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "anylist_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real information by naming the three things verified (account, credits, AnyList connection), but says nothing about whether the call is read-only, whether it consumes credits, or whether it may trigger an auth/reconnect flow when the connection is missing.

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 that states purpose and then enumerates the checks after the colon; nothing is redundant or padded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only place to learn what a status result looks like — yet it never indicates whether the response is a per-check boolean set, a single pass/fail, or an error on failure. For a diagnostics tool whose whole value is the returned state, that is a meaningful gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed, consistent with the empty schema, and adds no misleading parameter expectations.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Check') and enumerates the resources verified: the Cotlet.dev account, credits, and the AnyList connection. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from action-oriented siblings like anylist_click or anylist_read, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is a preflight/readiness check to run before other AnyList operations, but the description never states when to call it, whether it should be run first, or what to do if a check fails. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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