[duvera · risk:low] Search recipes by dish name (e.g. "arrabiata", "pad thai"). Returns ingredients, instructions, category, and cuisine. No account required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Dish name to search for, e.g. "carbonara". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description adds 'No account required' which is useful. However, it does not disclose rate limits, data freshness, or result limits. The risk:low prefix is non-standard.
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?
Two efficient sentences with no wasted words: purpose, examples, return fields, and requirement. Ideal front-loading.
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?
Given 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main aspects: what to input, what to expect back, and a requirement. Lacks mention of result limits or error handling.
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 coverage is 100% with a good parameter description. The tool description reinforces meaning with examples and expected return fields, adding value beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool searches recipes by dish name, provides examples, and lists return fields (ingredients, instructions, category, cuisine). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'duvera__food_restaurant_search' which targets restaurants.
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 specifies when to use by dish name with examples. It implies not to use for restaurant search due to sibling differentiation, but does not explicitly state when-not or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool is prefixed with its service name, and within each service, tools have distinct actions (e.g., mail_read vs. availability_find). The duvera tools cover different subdomains like dev, finance, and food with no overlap, making selection unambiguous.
All tools follow the pattern service__action_object or service__category_action, using lowercase with underscores. The order of verb and noun varies slightly (e.g., package_track vs. boardingpass_show), but the naming is highly predictable and readable.
With 52 tools, the server is large but justified as a gateway aggregating many external services. Each tool corresponds to a common task for its service, so no tool feels extraneous, though the total number is high.
The tool surface covers a wide array of services but only provides one or two basic operations per service (mostly read-only). While this suits a quick-lookup gateway, deeper workflows (e.g., creating or updating resources) are missing, leaving gaps for many use cases.
