Recipe Get
recipe_getReturns the full manifest of a recipe by name. recipe_not_found if unknown.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| steps | No | ||
| params | No | ||
| description | No |
recipe_getReturns the full manifest of a recipe by name. recipe_not_found if unknown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| steps | No | ||
| params | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. Description adds the error condition 'recipe_not_found if unknown', which is useful for error handling. No contradiction.
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 sentences: first states purpose, second states an error case. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with key information.
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?
Tool is simple with one required param and output schema exists. Description covers what it does and a key error condition. No missing essential context given the output schema handles return value details.
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?
Single required parameter 'name' described as 'by name' linking it directly to the tool's purpose. Schema coverage is 0%, but the description sufficiently clarifies the parameter's meaning.
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?
Clearly states it returns the full manifest of a recipe by name, with a specific error for unknown recipes. Verb 'returns' and resource 'recipe manifest' are specific. Distinguishes from siblings like recipe_list and recipe_run.
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?
Implies use when needing the full manifest of a specific recipe by name, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like recipe_list or recipe_discover.
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.