Find recipes from local or published sources. Returns no matches when unavailable.
Search local or published recipes; return no matches if unavailable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| features | No | ||
| include_spec | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare this tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral nuance: searches cover local and published recipes, and unavailable recipes produce no matches rather than an error or alternative behavior. It does not address limits or result details, but those are partially covered by the output schema and annotations.
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 description is one tight sentence with two clauses, no filler, and the verb and scope appear immediately. Every word earns its place.
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 tool with four parameters and zero parameter documentation, this description is too thin to support fully correct invocation. The output schema and annotations mitigate return-shape and safety concerns, but the meaning of `features` and `include_spec` remains unexplained, and 'unavailable' is not defined.
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 does not compensate: it never explains `query`, `limit`, `features`, or `include_spec`. Only the generic term 'Search' hints at the `query` parameter. An agent cannot infer the semantics of `features` or `include_spec` from this definition.
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 opens with the specific verb 'Search', names the resource 'recipes', and delimits the scope as 'local or published'. No sibling tool is a search operation, so it does not need a comparative caveat to be clearly distinguishable.
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 description implies it should be used to find recipes and states an availability-related outcome, but it never explicitly says when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. Since no sibling tool provides a comparable search, the ambiguity is modest but still present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.