recipe_similarFetch Spoonacular recipes similar to a given recipe by id. Returns up to number similar recipes with title, image URL, ready time, and servings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| number | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": 715495
+ },
+ {
+ "id": 715495,
+ "number": 5
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Similar recipes",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by specifying the output content (title, image URL, ready time, servings) and the 'up to number' limit, providing behavioral details beyond the structured annotations. No contradiction with annotations.
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 that states the action, source, and key output in a compact way. Every clause contributes meaning with no redundant wording.
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 only two simple numeric parameters, an output schema present, and strong annotations, the description adequately covers essential behavior. It mentions the source (Spoonacular) and the return fields, though it leaves minor details like default `number` or empty-result behavior unspecified, which are not critical for basic usage.
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 description text gives meaning to both parameters: `id` is identified as the source recipe identifier, and `number` is described as the maximum number of returned recipes. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though it does not specify a default value for `number`.
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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and a clear resource ('Spoonacular recipes similar to a given recipe by id'). It also lists the return fields (title, image URL, ready time, servings), which distinguishes this tool from sibling recipe tools like recipe_search 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?
The description clearly implies when to use the tool: when you have a recipe id and want similar recipe recommendations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough to guide an agent among the many recipe_* sibling tools.
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.