Cookidoo MCP Server

by herp75

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

Add To Meal Plan

add_to_meal_plan

Plan recipes on a specific day of your Cookidoo meal plan by assigning catalogue or custom recipe IDs to a chosen date.

Instructions

Plan recipes on a day of the meal plan.

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": {
      "day": "<day>"
    },
    "name": "add_to_meal_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`day`	Yes	The day, as YYYY-MM-DD
`recipe_ids`	No	Cookidoo catalogue recipe IDs
`custom_recipe_ids`	No	IDs of the user's own custom recipes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive mutation. The description adds no behavioral context such as whether recipes are appended or replace existing entries, how duplicates are handled, or what authentication is required.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. However, its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient completeness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with three parameters and multiple related siblings, the description is incomplete. Although an output schema and annotations exist, the description should still clarify key behavior such as appending recipes, handling custom recipes, and expected preconditions.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already explains the day format, recipe_ids, and custom_recipe_ids. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which makes the baseline 3 appropriate.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description says 'Plan recipes on a day of the meal plan,' which vaguely conveys adding recipes to a meal-plan day but uses the ambiguous verb 'plan' instead of 'add.' It does not clearly distinguish this from sibling operations such as move_in_meal_plan or remove_from_meal_plan, though the tool name and title help.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like move_in_meal_plan or remove_from_meal_plan. It also omits prerequisites such as being connected to Cookidoo or whether the day must already exist.

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