Unofficial Monsieur Cuisine MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Edit Recipe

edit_recipe

Modify one of your saved recipes by changing only the fields you supply; ingredients, steps, or categories you provide replace their current lists.

Instructions

Edit one of the logged-in user's own recipes (the "Edit" button in the web app). Only the fields you pass are changed; everything else is kept.

This is the counterpart to create_recipe: it fetches the recipe and re-saves it as a whole (the update is a full replace), so any argument left unset keeps its current value. The recipe keeps its current status; a published recipe is re-saved in place and must stay complete (the server rejects an edit that would make it incomplete). Requires a saved login session (uv run monsieur-cuisine-mcp-login).

Field meanings match create_recipe. IMPORTANT - collection fields REPLACE the current value when supplied: passing steps replaces ALL steps, and passing ingredients and/or ingredient_groups replaces ALL ingredient groups (so re-send the full list, not just the changed entries). Nutrients are merged instead: only the calories/protein/carbohydrate/fat you pass are overwritten. image_path replaces the cover photo. See create_recipe for the step/ingredient/program shapes.

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": "edit_recipe"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fat`	No	New fat per serving (g); rounded to a whole number.
`steps`	No	New ordered steps (replaces all steps; same shape as create_recipe, including per-step "title"/"program"/params).
`title`	No	New dish name.
`protein`	No	New protein per serving (g); rounded to a whole number.
`calories`	No	New energy per serving (kcal); rounded to a whole number.
`language`	No	Recipe language/locale, e.g. "pl-PL", "en-US".	en-US
`recipe_id`	Yes	Numeric id of the user's own recipe to edit (e.g. from list_my_recipes or the create_recipe result).
`image_path`	No	Local JPEG/PNG/WebP to set as the new cover photo.
`description`	No	New description.
`ingredients`	No	New default-group ingredients (replaces all groups; same dict shape as create_recipe).
`carbohydrate`	No	New carbohydrate per serving (g); rounded to a whole number.
`category_ids`	No	New category ids (replaces the current categories).
`complexity_id`	No	New difficulty id from list_recipe_creation_options.
`servings_unit`	No	New serving unit.
`servings_amount`	No	New number of servings.
`ingredient_groups`	No	New named ingredient groups (replaces all groups).
`prep_time_minutes`	No	New preparation time in minutes.
`ready_time_minutes`	No	New total time until ready, in minutes.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that the update is a full re-save/replace, that unset fields are preserved, that published recipes must remain complete or the server rejects the edit, and that a saved login session is required. It also flags the destructive nuance that collection fields replace all existing entries while nutrients merge.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the highest-risk caveat (full replace, unset fields preserved) before the per-field detail. Slightly long for the payoff, with some repetition of replace semantics already stated in the schema descriptions, but no wasted sentences.

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 an 18-parameter mutation with no annotations and an output schema present, this covers the critical traps: replace-vs-merge, preservation of unset fields, published-recipe completeness, and auth. What's missing is only peripheral (behavior on invalid recipe_id, what a successful response contains, though output schema may cover that).

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema lacks: ingredients/ingredient_groups replace ALL groups (not just the default), nutrients merge field-by-field, and image_path replaces the cover photo. It also delegates step/ingredient shape to create_recipe, which is useful but leaves shapes ultimately elsewhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (edit a recipe) plus the ownership constraint ('one of the logged-in user's own recipes') and anchors it to the UI feature. It also explicitly frames itself as the counterpart to create_recipe, so an agent can distinguish it from the many other recipe siblings.

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?

Names create_recipe as the sibling relationship and implies the create-vs-edit split, and the ownership requirement narrows applicability. It does not explicitly say 'use create_recipe for new recipes, edit_recipe for existing ones' nor reference get_recipe/list_my_recipes for discovering recipe_id beyond the schema, so routing is clear but not spelled out.

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