recipe_ingredientsFetch the ingredient list for a Spoonacular recipe by id. Returns each ingredient's name, amount, unit, image URL, and estimated cost in US cents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": 715495
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Ingredient list widget data",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the output fields and cost unit (US cents), which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate results.
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 extremely concise, using two sentences that front-load the primary action and parameter. It avoids unnecessary detail and every word contributes to understanding the tool.
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 one-parameter, read-only tool with a well-defined output schema and comprehensive annotations, this description is complete. It specifies the parameter purpose and return fields, making it sufficient for correct invocation.
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 schema only states the id is a number with no description. The description clarifies that id refers to a Spoonacular recipe, but does not detail its source or format. This adds some meaning but leaves room for more explicit guidance.
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 clearly states the tool's function: fetching the ingredient list for a Spoonacular recipe by id. It lists the specific data returned (name, amount, unit, image URL, cost in cents), distinguishing it from sibling tools like recipe_nutrition or recipe_information.
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?
Usage is implied: when you need ingredient details for a recipe. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives for different needs, such as recipe_price_breakdown for cost details.
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.