Cookidoo MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Update Custom Recipe

update_custom_recipe

DestructiveIdempotent

Replace an existing custom recipe on Cookidoo by overwriting its name, ingredients, steps, and hints with a validated recipe JSON after user approval.

Instructions

Replace the content of an existing custom recipe on Cookidoo. The previous name, ingredients, steps and hints are overwritten and cannot be restored.

Get the current version with get_custom_recipe, edit it, show the result to the user and only call this after their explicit approval. The recipe's devices are not changed.

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>",
      "recipe_json": "<recipe_json>"
    },
    "name": "update_custom_recipe"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`device`	No	Thermomix to check the settings for. Default: the recipe's own devices (TM6 rules if a TM6 is among them), then as for generate_recipe_structure
`recipe_id`	Yes	The custom recipe ID returned by list_custom_recipes
`recipe_json`	Yes	The full, validated recipe JSON (same format as upload_custom_recipe)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes further by naming exactly what is destroyed (previous name, ingredients, steps, hints) and that it cannot be restored. It also discloses a preservation guarantee not in the annotations — the recipe's devices are not changed.

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?

Destructive consequence is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the approval workflow follows immediately after. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding or repetition of schema fields.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive mutation tool this covers the irreversibility, the safe operating procedure, and what is preserved, while an output schema already covers returns. Nothing an agent needs to avoid a bad call is missing.

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, but the description adds meaning to the device parameter by clarifying devices are read for settings-checking only and are not modified. It does not restate the recipe_json format or ID sourcing beyond the schema, so it stops short of full added value.

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 (Replace) and resource (existing custom recipe on Cookidoo), and implicitly distinguishes itself from upload_custom_recipe (creation) and get_custom_recipe (read). An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit precondition workflow: fetch with get_custom_recipe, edit, show the user, and call only after explicit approval. It names the alternative tool to use first and the condition (user approval) that gates this call.

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