recipe_getReturns the full manifest of a recipe by name. recipe_not_found if unknown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the recipe, as listed by recipe_list. Returns recipe_not_found if it is unknown. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| steps | No | ||
| params | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / name / descriptionAdded value: +"Name of the recipe, as listed by recipe_list. Returns recipe_not_found if it is unknown."Input schema / properties / name / descriptionRemoved value: -"Name of the recipe, as listed by recipe_list. Returns recipe_not_found if it is unknown."Input schema / properties / name / descriptionPrevious value: -"Name of the recipe, as listed by recipe_discover. Returns recipe_not_found if it is unknown."New value: +"Name of the recipe, as listed by recipe_list. Returns recipe_not_found if it is unknown."Input schema / properties / name / descriptionAdded value: +"Name of the recipe, as listed by recipe_discover. Returns recipe_not_found if it is unknown."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "description": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "params": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "steps": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond that: it returns a 'full manifest' and explicitly states the recipe_not_found behavior for unknown names.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action, then adds the error condition. Every word earns its place.
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 single-parameter getter with read-only annotations and an output schema, this description is complete. It covers the operation, the input condition, and the error case; no critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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%, and the name parameter is already well-documented in the schema, including the recipe_list reference and the recipe_not_found error. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 verb ('Returns') and resource ('full manifest of a recipe by name'), making the tool's function immediately clear. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like recipe_list, recipe_run, or recipe_export, which have different roles.
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 gives clear context: use this when you have a recipe name and need its full manifest. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like recipe_list for discovering names, so it falls short of a 5, but the usage context is not ambiguous.
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.