Unofficial Monsieur Cuisine MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Publish Recipe

publish_recipe

Publishes a draft recipe publicly for editorial review or privately to your own account, and switches an already published recipe between public and private.

Instructions

Publish one of the logged-in user's own DRAFT recipes.

The workflow is: create_recipe makes a draft, then this tool publishes it. Two modes, mirroring the web app's publish dialog:

private=False (default): PUBLIC publish - submits the recipe for editorial review (status "pending"); it goes public only after the Monsieur Cuisine team approves it. The web app requires confirming the recipe and photo are your own original content; publishing here asserts the same, so only do it when the user intends to submit their original recipe for public review.
private=True: PRIVATE publish (status "private-publish") - published only to the user's own account, no review.

The recipe must be complete or the server refuses to publish (a clear "not complete" error lists what is missing): cover photo, complexity, categories, a serving size, at least one ingredient, and a non-empty title on every step and ingredient group.

Also switches an already-published recipe between public and private. NOTE: a published recipe cannot be reverted to a draft (the platform forbids it) - to take one down, switch it to private (private=True) or use delete_recipe.

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": "publish_recipe"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`private`	No	True to publish privately; False (default) to submit for public review.
`language`	No	Locale, e.g. "pl-PL", "en-US".	en-US
`recipe_id`	Yes	Numeric id of the user's own recipe to publish (e.g. from the create_recipe result or list_my_recipes).

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?

No annotations are supplied, and the description fully carries the burden: it discloses the two resulting statuses ('pending' vs 'private-publish'), that public publishing triggers human editorial review, the completeness validation with the exact list of required fields, the platform-enforced irreversibility of publishing, and the saved-session auth requirement. It also flags that publishing asserts originality on the user's behalf, which is a real consent side effect.

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 one-line purpose, then organized into clearly labeled mode, validation, and takedown blocks. It is longer than most definitions, but each block carries distinct operational information; the only mild redundancy is restating the web-app dialog behavior.

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 state-mutating tool with three parameters and an output schema (so return values need not be described), the description covers preconditions, mode semantics, validation failure behavior, irreversibility, and auth setup. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it is missing.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining what `private` actually means in platform terms (public review queue vs 'private-publish' status) and the consequence of the default. `recipe_id` ownership is also clarified as the user's own recipe, though the `language` parameter is left entirely 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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource with scope ('publish one of the logged-in user's own DRAFT recipes'), and the workflow line positions it against create_recipe and delete_recipe. An agent can distinguish it from edit_recipe, delete_recipe, and restore_recipe without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite chain (create_recipe makes a draft, then this publishes it), explains both modes and when each applies ('only do it when the user intends to submit their original recipe for public review'), and names alternatives for takedown (private=True or delete_recipe). When-not guidance is spelled out via the irreversibility note.

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