get_recipes_for_inputFind all recipes that consume a specified Minecraft item or fluid as input, including tag-based ingredients, to determine what it can craft or be used for.
查询所有把指定物品当作输入的配方。用户问「X 有什么用」「X 能做什么」时用。已正确处理标签：用 #forge:ingots/iron 这类标签作输入的配方也会被算进来。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | Yes | 物品 id，形如 "minecraft:iron_ingot" | |
| kind | No | item | |
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses one non-obvious behavior — tag inputs like #forge:ingots/iron are matched — but says nothing about result ordering, whether the default limit of 30 silently truncates, or what the response looks like.
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 short sentences: purpose first, usage trigger second, behavioral caveat third. No filler; every clause adds information an agent would otherwise have to guess.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and only one of three parameters documented, the description should say more. It covers the core purpose and the tag behavior but leaves `kind` and `limit` — both of which change results materially — completely unexplained.
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 only 33%: the `item` parameter is documented in the schema, but `kind` (item/fluid enum) and `limit` (1-200, default 30) are undocumented anywhere. The description mentions only the item and never addresses fluid queries or the truncation limit, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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: '查询所有把指定物品当作输入的配方'. The 'as input' framing implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_recipes_for_output, but the description never names that sibling to make the routing explicit.
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?
Gives a concrete user-phrasing trigger ('X 有什么用' / 'X 能做什么'), which is directly actionable. It offers no exclusion or alternative, so an agent facing the reverse question ('how do I make X') gets no pointer to get_recipes_for_output.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.