get_recipes_for_outputFind all recipes that produce a specified Minecraft item or fluid, including opaque recipes, so users can determine how an item is made.
查询所有能产出指定物品的配方。用户问「X 怎么做」「X 怎么来的」时用这个。会同时返回读不懂的配方（标记 opaque），因为「有配方但读不懂」和「没有配方」是两回事。
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely non-obvious behavior: unreadable recipes are still returned and flagged opaque, because 'has a recipe but can't parse it' differs from 'no recipe'. It says nothing about result ordering, the default 30/200 cap, or what an empty result means.
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, zero waste: what it does, when to call it, then the opaque caveat. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should explain the return shape; it only hints at an 'opaque' marker. It also leaves 'kind' and 'limit' unaddressed, which is a real gap for a 3-parameter tool, though the core intent is clear.
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 coverage is only 33%: only 'item' is documented in the schema, while 'kind' (item vs fluid enum) and 'limit' (1-200, default 30) are undocumented in both places. The description says nothing about these two parameters, so it fails to 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?
The description states a specific verb+resource: return all recipes that produce a given item. The direction (output-side lookup) implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_recipes_for_input, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
It gives concrete user-question triggers ('X 怎么做', 'X 怎么来的') that select this tool, which is stronger than implied usage. It stops short of naming the reverse-lookup sibling as the alternative or stating 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.