list_cookbooksList the user's cookbooks with how many recipes each holds, for "what cookbooks do I have", or before saving when the user says "the usual one". Every user has a default cookbook; the others are named by the user, e.g. Stews, BBQ, Christmas. Cookbooks shared with the household carry shared=true and appear for every member.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cookbooks | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / cookbooks / items / properties / sharedAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Output schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseOutput schema / properties / cookbooks / items / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain behavior an agent cannot infer: every user has a default cookbook, others are user-named, and shared cookbooks surface for all household members.
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?
Three compact sentences: what it returns, when to call it, then domain context about defaults and sharing. Purpose is front-loaded and nothing is padding.
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?
A zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, rich annotations, and a description that explains the result set's structure and household visibility. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description goes slightly further by characterizing the returned fields (recipe counts, shared flag, default cookbook), though most of that is also carried by the output 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List the user's cookbooks') and adds the payload detail 'with how many recipes each holds'. This distinguishes it cleanly from recipe-level siblings like get_recipe and list_saved.
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?
Two concrete triggers are given: answering 'what cookbooks do I have' and resolving 'the usual one' before a save. It doesn't name a competing tool or a when-not case (e.g. vs create_cookbook/update_cookbook), so it stops short of full routing guidance.
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.