Get a recipe by ID. Returns complete, copy-paste-ready Swift source code with architecture explanation and implementation steps. Module recipes may also include backend code (Hono/Node.js + AWS CDK).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Recipe ID, e.g. 'animation-shimmer' or 'auth-cognito' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the returned artifact (copy-paste-ready Swift code, architecture explanation, optional backend code), exceeding baseline without contradiction.
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 reasonably concise, employing three sentences that each contribute meaning. It front-loads the main verb ('Get by ID') and adds detail without excess fluff, though the second sentence could be slightly tightened.
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 single-parameter read tool with solid annotations and a descriptive output summary, the description covers the essential context. It omits response format and error cases, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity and lack of an output schema.
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 input schema fully documents the single 'id' parameter with examples (100% coverage). The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond implying the ID is the lookup key, so the baseline 3 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 description clearly states 'Get a recipe by ID' and enriches with return content (Swift source code, backend code). It distinguishes from sibling list/search tools via the 'by ID' qualifier, but does not explicitly name or contrast them, so it falls short of a 5.
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 implies use when a specific recipe ID is known, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use listRecipes vs searchRecipes, nor any exclusions or alternatives. It lacks a direct when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement.
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.
getRecipe and searchRecipes are clearly distinct (by ID vs. keyword), but listRecipes and searchRecipes could overlap since both return multiple recipes. Descriptions help clarify that list is for browsing all/categories while search is for targeted keyword queries.
All tool names follow the same camelCase verb-noun pattern: getRecipe, listRecipes, searchRecipes. No mixing of styles or vague verbs.
Three tools is on the low end but appropriate for a read-only recipe catalog. Each tool covers a distinct retrieval operation, though a category-filtering tool could be a natural addition.
For a recipe lookup service, get-by-id, list-all, and search-by-keyword cover the core workflows. Missing operations like create/update/delete are likely intentional since this appears to be a curated read-only repo.
