cronometer-mcp

by cphoskins

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

remove_food_entry

Delete a logged food item from your Cronometer diary using its serving ID to correct or update daily nutrition logs.

Instructions

Remove a food entry from the Cronometer diary.

Args: serving_id: The serving ID returned by add_food_entry (e.g. "D80lp$").

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": {
      "serving_id": "<serving_id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_food_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`serving_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.3Mar 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only indicates removal without discussing side effects, idempotency, or error handling (e.g., behavior if serving_id does not exist). This is insufficient.

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?

The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and one line for the parameter. It is front-loaded with the essential action and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate for basic usage. However, it lacks details on behavior (e.g., success/failure indication) that would make it fully complete.

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 description adds valuable context to the serving_id parameter by specifying it is 'the serving ID returned by add_food_entry' and providing an example. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 clearly states the verb 'Remove' and the resource 'food entry from the Cronometer diary'. It is distinct from siblings like add_food_entry and get_food_log, which are for addition and retrieval.

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 description explicitly states that the serving_id must come from add_food_entry, providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, which for a simple removal tool is acceptable.

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