Unofficial Monsieur Cuisine MCP

by githubllff

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Delete Recipe

delete_recipe

Deletes one of your own recipes by recipe_id, moving it to trash so it no longer appears in your recipe list.

Instructions

Delete one of the logged-in user's own recipes (moves it to trash).

This is the "Delete" action from the web app's "My recipes" list ("..." menu): it sets the recipe's status to "trash", so it disappears from the recipe list. The web app has no trash view or restore button, so on the website this is effectively permanent. Technically it's a soft delete - the data is kept server-side and can be brought back with restore_recipe - but there is no hard-delete endpoint, so a trashed recipe stays in trash forever. Works for the user's own recipes in any status; it cannot delete recipes that are not the user's own.

Because this changes the user's account, only call it for a recipe the user has clearly asked to delete, identified by its recipe_id (from list_my_recipes / the create_recipe result). The result reports the deleted recipe's title and previous status.

Requires a saved login session: run uv run monsieur-cuisine-mcp-login once beforehand.

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>"
    },
    "name": "delete_recipe"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`language`	No	Locale, e.g. "pl-PL", "en-US".	en-US
`recipe_id`	Yes	Numeric id of the user's own recipe to delete.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the soft-delete mechanism, the absence of a hard-delete endpoint, the effective permanence on the website, the server-side retention, the restore_recipe recovery path, and the saved-login-session requirement.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the action and scope, and most of its length is justified by the destructive/soft-delete behavior. It is somewhat repetitive about trash permanence, but the repetition reinforces an important nuance rather than adding unrelated material.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive mutation with no annotations, the description is complete enough to call correctly: it covers ownership constraints, recipe_id provenance, authentication prerequisites, soft-delete behavior, and the result summary. An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that recipe_id must identify the user's own recipe and can come from list_my_recipes or the create_recipe result; the language parameter is left to the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it deletes one of the logged-in user's own recipes and moves it to trash. It immediately distinguishes this action from restore_recipe and edit_recipe by explaining the soft-delete/trash behavior.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says to call it only when the user has clearly asked to delete a recipe, identifies recipe_id as coming from list_my_recipes or the create_recipe result, and states that recipes not owned by the user cannot be deleted. It also points to restore_recipe as the alternative for bringing a trashed recipe back.

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