Cookidoo MCP Server

by herp75

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

Follow Collection

follow_collection

Save a Cookidoo collection by its ID to add it to your followed collections and keep it accessible in your account.

Instructions

Follow (save) a Cookidoo collection, adding it to the user's followed collections.

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": {
      "collection_id": "<collection_id>"
    },
    "name": "follow_collection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`collection_id`	Yes	ID of a Cookidoo collection (e.g. from a recipe page or search)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds that the effect is appending to the user's followed collections, but says nothing about authentication requirements, idempotency, or what happens if the collection is already followed.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action and with the '(save)' gloss earning its place by disambiguating 'follow'. Nothing is redundant, though the phrasing 'Follow ... adding it to the user's followed collections' is mildly circular.

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 single-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, complete annotations and an output schema, the description covers what the tool does and its effect. Only secondary behavior (duplicate-follow handling, auth) is missing, which is minor at this complexity.

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 the single collection_id parameter is already documented in the schema, including where IDs come from. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Follow (save)') and resource ('a Cookidoo collection'), with the parenthetical clarifying that following means saving. The contrast with the nearby unfollow_collection sibling is implicit in the verb but never stated, so it stops just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus add_to_collection or create_collection, and no prerequisites are mentioned. Usage is only inferable from the verb itself.

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