Search recipes by keyword across titles, descriptions, tags, and full source code. Use for any iOS, SwiftUI, or backend topic — e.g. subscription, authentication, camera, animation, chart, onboarding, paywall, infrastructure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search keyword, e.g. 'shimmer', 'authentication', 'chart' |
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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the insight that search covers 'full source code' and extends beyond titles/tags, which is useful but not deeply behavioral. No contradictions 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 concise and well-structured: two sentences. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides usage guidance with representative topics. Every word adds value, avoiding redundancy.
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 search tool with one parameter, full schema coverage, and appropriate annotations, the description is complete. It explains what is searched, how to use it, and provides examples, making it sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 single 'query' parameter is fully described in the schema with examples, and schema coverage is 100%. The description reiterates that the query is a keyword but adds no additional syntactic or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('recipes'), and indicates the scope ('across titles, descriptions, tags, and full source code'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like getRecipe and listRecipes by emphasizing keyword-based search across multiple fields.
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 provides clear usage context: 'Use for any iOS, SwiftUI, or backend topic' with concrete examples. It implies the tool is appropriate for broad topic searches, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it.
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.
