get_keywordRetrieve a recipe keyword by its ID, choosing slim or full format, to reuse and manage keywords in your Tandoor Recipes instance.
Get keyword by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| format | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds no behavioral context such as what the 'format' parameter changes, what fields are returned, or how missing IDs behave.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler. However, brevity here veers into under-specification rather than efficient communication.
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 read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It leaves the 'format' parameter unexplained and provides no clue about return shape or when to prefer this over list_keywords.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only restates that lookup is by ID. The 'format' parameter with its slim/full enum is completely undocumented and its effect is undefined.
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 ('Get') and resource ('keyword') scoped to lookup by ID. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_keywords tool or clarify why one would retrieve a single keyword.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_keywords or other lookup tools. The only implied usage is retrieving a known ID, but that is not stated as a condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.