Search the recipe catalog by name, category or cuisine area.
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": "search_recipes"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| area | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| pageSize | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, so the description is not required to explain mutability. It adds that the search can be filtered by name, category, or cuisine area, but does not describe pagination behavior, result limits, sorting, or what is returned.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is well structured but arguably too thin for a tool with five undocumented parameters.
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?
The tool has five parameters, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage. The description covers only the basic search concept and leaves pagination, result shape, and parameter-to-field mapping unexplained, so important context is missing.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for all five parameters. It only loosely maps to three filters (name/query, category, cuisine area) and completely omits page and pageSize, leaving pagination semantics undocumented.
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 clear verb and resource: search the recipe catalog. It also names three search dimensions (name, category, cuisine area), so an agent can understand the tool's basic purpose. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as search_foods, search_exercises, or get_recipe.
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 implies the tool is for searching recipes, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of get_recipe or sibling search tools. There are no exclusions or conditions for choosing among 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.