Cookidoo MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Clear Shopping List

clear_shopping_list

Destructive

Empties the entire Cookidoo shopping list, including recipe ingredients and manually added items. Requires explicit user confirmation and confirm=true because the action cannot be undone.

Instructions

Empty the whole shopping list: every recipe, ingredient and item added by hand. This cannot be undone. Requires confirm=true after the user explicitly agreed.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "clear_shopping_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No	Must be true; refuses otherwise

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety class is known; the description adds the non-obvious facts that the effect is irreversible and that confirm must follow explicit user agreement. That consent-ordering nuance is genuine added value beyond the annotations, though failure behavior is left to the schema.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences: the destructive scope is front-loaded and the irreversibility/consent constraint follows. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope, irreversibility, and the confirm gate for a single-parameter destructive tool. Minor omission: it does not say what an agent should do if the user has not yet agreed (e.g., prompt instead of calling).

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% and the schema already says confirm 'must be true; refuses otherwise', so baseline is 3. The description goes one step further by specifying the sequencing condition — the user must explicitly agree before confirm is set — which the schema does not convey.

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 ('Empty the whole shopping list') plus an explicit scope enumeration ('every recipe, ingredient and item added by hand'), which distinguishes it from the granular sibling tools like remove_shopping_list_items and remove_recipes_from_shopping_list without needing to name them.

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?

The word 'whole' and the enumerated contents make clear this is the full-list reset rather than a partial edit, and the confirm requirement establishes a prerequisite. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent to the partial-removal siblings when only some items should go, leaving that inference to the reader.

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