Read editable planning recipes for scoped agent work. Templates are not available supplier offers or quotes.
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": "list_outcome_recipes"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It notes the items are 'editable' and are not offers/quotes, but says nothing about scoping (whose recipes), whether the list is filtered, ordering, or what a recipe entry looks like.
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 short sentences, so size is fine, but the second sentence is grammatically broken ('not available supplier offers or quotes'), forcing the reader to reparse the exclusion. Front-loading is adequate.
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?
With no params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the only source of information, and it does not say what a recipe contains or how it feeds downstream tools like compile_outcome_brief or apply_to_mission. It is minimally sufficient but leaves real gaps.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for; baseline 4 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 verb 'Read' and resource 'editable planning recipes for scoped agent work' are stated, but 'planning recipe' is undefined jargon to an outside agent. The second sentence differentiates it from supplier offers and quotes, which helps route away from quote_agent_work/customer_bounty_offers, but the core object remains fuzzy.
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 exclusion 'Templates are not available supplier offers or quotes' implies when this is not the right tool, but no positive when-to-use condition or named alternative is given. An agent must infer that this is the starting point for scoped agent planning work.
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.