Retrieve recent meal history to avoid repeating meals and review eating patterns. Returns entries with dates, recipes, and diners.
Recent meal history for rotation planning. USE WHEN: checking what was cooked recently to avoid repetition, reviewing eating patterns. Returns meal entries with dates, recipe names, and who ate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| weeks | No | Weeks back (default 4) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what is returned: 'meal entries with dates, recipe names, and who ate', which compensates for the absence of an output schema. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or limits, so it falls short of full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Purpose, usage, and return content are each stated once and in a logical order.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only retrieval tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, when to use it, and the resource scope. Minor gaps like default behavior for the weeks parameter or result ordering are not critical for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'weeks' parameter, so the schema already carries the semantic burden. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning or formatting guidance, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific resource (recent meal history) and a clear purpose (rotation planning). It distinguishes itself from log_meal and recipe tools by focusing on historical retrieval, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it is not.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides an explicit 'USE WHEN' section naming two concrete scenarios: avoiding repetition and reviewing eating patterns. It lacks explicit when-not conditions or alternative siblings, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.