Cookidoo MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete Custom Recipe

delete_custom_recipe

Destructive

Permanently deletes one of the user's custom recipes, including ingredients, steps, and settings, after explicit confirmation; this action cannot be undone.

Instructions

Permanently delete one of the user's custom recipes, with its ingredients, steps and settings. This cannot be undone. Requires confirm=true after the user explicitly agreed.

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": "delete_custom_recipe"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No	Must be true; refuses otherwise
`recipe_id`	Yes	The custom recipe ID returned by list_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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is not new information; the description earns credit for adding the cascade scope (ingredients, steps, settings), the irreversibility warning, and the confirm gate that refuses without explicit consent. It stops short of describing what a refusal or error response looks like, though an output schema exists.

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?

Three compact sentences with the destructive action and its cascade up front, followed by the irreversibility warning and then the required confirmation. No filler or repetition.

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 a two-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage, an output schema and destructive annotations, the description covers scope, consequence and the confirmation gate. Only minor gaps remain, such as error/refusal behavior and any ownership or permission constraints.

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; the description goes slightly beyond it by tying confirm=true to a user-consent moment ('after the user explicitly agreed'), which adds workflow meaning beyond the schema's 'Must be true; refuses otherwise'. It adds nothing further for recipe_id, which the schema already explains via list_custom_recipes.

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 ('Permanently delete') and a precisely scoped resource ('one of the user's custom recipes'), and clarifies that ingredients, steps and settings are removed with it. An agent can distinguish this from update_custom_recipe or delete_collection without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear precondition for invocation: only call after the user explicitly agreed and with confirm=true. It does not name alternatives (e.g., update_custom_recipe when the user only wants to change something), so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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