create_households_mealplansAdd a single meal plan entry to a household calendar on a chosen date, optionally linked to a recipe with an entry type, serving scale, and end date.
Create One
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | ||
| text | No | ||
| endDate | No | ||
| recipeId | No | ||
| entryType | No | ||
| recipeScale | No | ||
| accept-language | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.30.0Input schema / properties / endDateAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "format": "date",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+}v3.29.0Input schema / properties / recipeScaleAdded value: +{
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+}v3.20.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about the write operation: not whether a recipe reference is required, what happens to entries in the same date range, permission requirements, or any side effects. An output schema exists but the description does not point to it or characterize the result.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two words are technically concise, but this is under-specification rather than economy. There is no structure, no front-loaded statement of what is created, and nothing that earns its place because nothing useful is conveyed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, a dense sibling namespace, and only one required field, the definition provides essentially no information an agent needs to call it correctly. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the total absence of purpose and parameter context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. Meaning for date, endDate, entryType enum values, recipeId, recipeScale, text, and accept-language must be guessed entirely from property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
"Create One" is a near-tautology that only restates the singular form of the operation implied by the tool name. It never states the resource being created (a meal plan entry), the household scope, or how it differs from siblings like create_households_mealplans_random or create_households_mealplans_ical.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of alternatives (the random meal-plan generator, the iCal creation endpoint, or update_households_mealplans_by_item), no preconditions, and no exclusions. An agent must infer everything from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.