task_recipesFree. Multi-tool workflow prompts (clone a site, SEO audit). No args → menu; recipe='' → prompt.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "task_recipes"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recipe | No | Recipe id; omit for menu. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / recipe / descriptionAdded value: +"Recipe id; omit for menu."Input schema / properties / recipe / descriptionRemoved value: -"The recipe id to expand (e.g. 'replicate_website', 'seo_audit'). Omit to list the menu."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the main behavioral burden is covered. The description adds useful non-schema context: the tool is free, it returns workflow prompts, and omitting arguments produces a menu rather than an error.
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?
It is three compact fragments, front-loaded with cost and purpose, then invocation behavior. Every part carries useful information with no waste.
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, zero-required-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It still does not explain what the menu contains or the shape of the returned prompt, but those are modest gaps given the tool's simplicity.
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%, so the sole parameter is already documented. The description restates the omit-for-menu behavior and adds that a recipe id yields a prompt, but it does not add syntax, ID format, or discovery detail 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 states a specific resource — "Multi-tool workflow prompts" — and gives concrete examples ("clone a site, SEO audit"), so its purpose is clear beyond the title. It is not fully explicit about how it differs from sibling tools such as tool_catalog, but the recipe/prompt framing is distinct enough for selection.
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?
It gives explicit call patterns: "No args → menu" and "recipe='<id>' → prompt." This is clear invocation context, though it does not name alternatives or say when to prefer this over a sibling tool.
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.