io.github.rwestergren/cronometer-api-mcp

add_recipe

Create a recipe in Cronometer from existing foods by combining food IDs and gram weights. Full nutrition is calculated automatically, and the returned recipe ID can be logged directly.

Instructions

Create a recipe in Cronometer from other foods in the database.

Unlike add_custom_food, which takes hand-entered nutrition, a recipe references existing foods by ID and Cronometer derives the full nutrient profile (including micronutrients) from those ingredients.

Use search_foods to find each ingredient's food_id. After creation, use the returned food_id with add_food_entry to log it.

Args: name: Recipe name. ingredients: List of {"food_id": int, "grams": float} objects, one per ingredient. An optional "measure_id" overrides the unit shown in Cronometer's UI; "grams" always drives the nutrition math. serving_name: Name of the default serving measure (default "Serving"). serving_grams: Grams in one serving. Defaults to the full batch weight (one serving = the whole recipe). comments: Free-text recipe notes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	Yes
`comments`	No
`ingredients`	Yes
`serving_name`	No	Serving
`serving_grams`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.2.3Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that nutrient profiles are derived from ingredients, that grams always drive nutrition math, and that measure_id only affects the UI unit. It also clarifies that serving_grams defaults to the full batch weight. No contradiction with annotations 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?

The description is efficient and well-organized: purpose first, then differentiation, then usage flow, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant filler or restating of schema titles.

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 5-parameter creation tool with no schema descriptions, the description provides complete guidance on inputs, defaults, dependencies on other tools, and downstream usage. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Despite the schema having 0% description coverage, the description defines every parameter with meaningful semantics, including the ingredient object shape, the optional measure_id behavior, and default values for serving_name and serving_grams. This fully compensates for the sparse schema.

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 clearly states the tool creates a recipe in Cronometer from existing foods by ID, contrasting it with add_custom_food. It identifies the resource, the action, and the key distinguishing behavior (deriving the full nutrient profile from referenced ingredients).

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent to use search_foods to find food IDs and to use the returned food_id with add_food_entry after creation. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from add_custom_food, making the when-to-use decision unambiguous.

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