Lists markdown pattern recipes (dialog, combobox) and opt-in SCSS recipes (bare-tags) for reuse in any framework.
List recipes from scss/recipes/. Two kinds: markdown pattern recipes (kind:"md" — dialog, combobox, print-to-pdf: a pattern to follow in any framework, with category + complexity) and opt-in SCSS recipes (kind:"scss" — e.g. bare-tags, consumed via @use).
| 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?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add real context about the returned content — the two kinds, their attribute sets (category, complexity), and the @use consumption model — which is more than a bare listing. However, it never states that this is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated or filtered, or what happens on failure.
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?
One compact sentence with a parenthetical, with the source location front-loaded and the two kinds broken out cleanly. It is dense but every clause conveys distinct information about what recipes are and how they differ.
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 must convey return-value shape, and it does so reasonably: it names the two kinds, the kind discriminator, and attributes such as category and complexity. A few result fields and any ordering/pagination behavior remain undisclosed, but this is largely complete for a zero-parameter listing tool.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description's discussion of the kind field describes output shape rather than input, which is useful but belongs under return-value disclosure.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List recipes from scss/recipes/') and goes further by defining the two content kinds with their discriminator values (kind:"md" vs kind:"scss"). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_recipe, but the list/get distinction plus the enumerated kinds makes the tool's scope unambiguous.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the discovery entry point for recipes before calling get_recipe, and the kind explanations hint at when each category matters. There is no explicit when-to-use, no named alternative, and no prerequisites, so it stays at the minimum-viable level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.