Cookidoo MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Add Shopping List Items

add_shopping_list_items

Add items manually to your Cookidoo shopping list by entering names as a list or one per line, up to 50 items, to keep your grocery planning complete.

Instructions

Add items by hand to the shopping list (e.g. "milk", "2 lemons").

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": {
      "items": "<items>"
    },
    "name": "add_shopping_list_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes	Item names, as a list (or one per line), at most 50

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation. The description adds the 'by hand' framing and example format but says nothing about whether items are appended to the existing list, how duplicates are handled, or whether anything existing is overwritten — the traits an agent would want before re-running the call.

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?

One sentence plus a parenthetical example, with the action front-loaded and no wasted wording. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the core action. It is still thin on side effects of the mutation (append vs. replace, duplicate handling), which is the main remaining gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and already documents the list-or-lines format and the 50-item cap. The examples ('milk', '2 lemons') usefully show that quantities can be embedded in the item string, but that is a marginal addition over the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add items ... to the shopping list') and the qualifier 'by hand' contrasts with the recipe-based sibling add_recipes_to_shopping_list. The distinction is inferable rather than stated by name, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'By hand' implies when to use it (free-text items) versus recipe-based addition, and the example clarifies the expected input form. However, there is no explicit statement of when not to use it or a named alternative, so guidance is only implied.

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