list_unitsRetrieves measurement units from a Tandoor Recipes instance so agents can search, paginate, or randomly select unit options for recipe data.
List units. Optional: query, limit, page, page_size, random.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| format | No | ||
| random | No | ||
| page_size | 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered without help. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no pagination behavior, no ordering defaults, no indication of what random returns.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, but the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being achieved through efficient wording. The parameter list is bare tokens with no structure or grouping.
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 seven parameters, zero schema descriptions, an unexplained enum, and no output schema, the description should carry substantial weight and does not. An agent cannot tell from this definition what a unit is or how to page or filter deterministically.
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% and the description merely re-lists five parameter names without meaning. It omits the format enum and the updated_at parameter entirely, and never clarifies the relationship between limit and page_size or what the string-typed random parameter does.
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 gives a verb and resource ("List units"), which is at least a statement of function, but "units" is never defined and the phrasing is essentially a restatement of the title. It offers no hint of how this differs from siblings such as list_foods, list_recipes, or list_inventory_entries.
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 when-to-use guidance, no indication of what a unit is in this domain, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.