Find recipes by filter IDs, tags, foods, tools, categories, cookbook, or query, with pagination and sorting by name.
Search recipes by stable filter IDs with upstream pagination; sort by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | name | |
| query | No | ||
| tag_ids | No | ||
| food_ids | No | ||
| per_page | No | ||
| tool_ids | No | ||
| direction | No | asc | |
| cookbook_id | No | ||
| require_all | No | ||
| category_ids | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints that pagination is handled 'upstream' and that filtering is by stable IDs rather than names, but never states that this is a read-only operation, what the defaults are, or how the 11 filters combine.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing semantics noted above.
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?
Eleven undocumented parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations means the agent must guess at filter-combination behavior and result sizes. Only the presence of an output schema lightens the burden slightly; the description as written is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.
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 11 parameters, so the description must compensate and barely does. It mentions sorting by name and pagination, but leaves opaque the critical 'require_all' flag (AND vs OR of filters), 'direction', 'per_page', and how tag_ids/food_ids/tool_ids/category_ids/cookbook_id interact.
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?
Names a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('recipes') and adds scope detail (filter-ID based, paginated, sortable by name). It does not distinguish itself from sibling 'suggest_recipes', which an agent could plausibly confuse with a text-search tool.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many recipe siblings (get_recipe, suggest_recipes, create_recipe). Usage is only implied by the verb 'Search'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.