recipe_tasteFetch taste profile scores for a Spoonacular recipe by id. Returns numeric scores for sweetness, saltiness, sourness, bitterness, savoriness, fattiness, and spiciness. Optionally normalize scores 0–100.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| normalize | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": 715495
+ },
+ {
+ "id": 715495,
+ "normalize": true
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Taste widget data",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating the specific scores returned (sweetness, saltiness, etc.) and noting the optional normalization to 0-100. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand what to expect.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value, making it very concise and well-structured.
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 is simple with only two parameters and an output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return format. It covers the purpose, parameters, and output structure (scores list plus normalization). It could mention error conditions or prerequisites, but for a read-only fetch, the description is sufficiently complete.
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. It does: 'by id' clarifies the id parameter is the recipe id, and 'Optionally normalize scores 0–100' explains the normalize boolean parameter. No additional detail is needed beyond what is provided and inferred from the schema.
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: 'Fetch taste profile scores for a Spoonacular recipe by id.' It uses a specific verb ('fetch'), identifies the resource ('taste profile scores'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like recipe_nutrition or recipe_summary by focusing on taste dimensions.
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: the tool should be used when you need taste profile scores for a recipe. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. Given the many recipe-related siblings, more explicit guidance would be helpful.
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.