list_keywordsRetrieve and filter recipe keywords (tags) from a Tandoor Recipes instance by query, hierarchy, randomization, or pagination to find relevant tags.
List keywords (recipe tags). Optional: query, root, tree, random, limit, page, page_size.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| root | No | ||
| tree | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| format | No | ||
| random | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| root_tree | No | ||
| updated_at | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the semantic gloss "recipe tags" and a bare parameter list; it says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or how tree/root modes change what is returned.
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?
Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, so there is no padding. However, the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency: the parameter dump conveys almost no usable information for its length.
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 10 optional parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, this description is far too thin to let an agent call the tool correctly. It omits three parameters entirely and gives no return-shape or paging context; only the annotations rescue basic safety expectations.
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% across 10 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and names 7 of them without any meaning attached. Worse, the omitted parameters (format, root_tree, updated_at) appear nowhere, and the ambiguous ones (tree vs root, random, limit typed as string) get no explanation of expected values.
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?
"List keywords" states a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical "(recipe tags)" usefully disambiguates what a keyword is in this domain. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_keyword or explain how keyword listing relates to recipe listing, so it falls short of 5.
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 only guidance is "Optional: query, root, tree, random, limit, page, page_size," which is a parameter inventory rather than a statement of when to use this tool. There is no mention of when to prefer get_keyword, when to use tree versus flat listing, or any precondition for calling it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.