Cookidoo MCP Server

by herp75

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

Edit Shopping List Items

edit_shopping_list_items

DestructiveIdempotent

Rename manually added shopping list items by ID, replacing old names; recipe ingredients are excluded.

Instructions

Rename items that were added by hand (not recipe ingredients). The old name is replaced.

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": "edit_shopping_list_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes	List of {"id": ..., "name": ...} with IDs from get_shopping_list

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare mutation, destruction, idempotency, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: only manually added items are eligible, and the old name is replaced, which explains what is overwritten.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted wording. The eligibility constraint is front-loaded before the replacement behavior.

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?

The tool is simple, the schema is fully documented, an output schema exists, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the critical eligibility and replacement semantics, leaving only minor schema-level details to structured fields.

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%, and the schema already documents the item ID, new name, and array structure. The description does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: rename shopping list items. It also adds the key scoping distinction that only hand-added items are eligible, explicitly excluding recipe ingredients.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use guidance by limiting the operation to hand-added items and explicitly excluding recipe ingredients. It does not name an alternative tool for recipe-ingredient renaming, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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