Fetch a Nemlig recipe by link or ID, adjust ingredient quantities for a specified number of people, and calculate product prices, excluding pantry staples.
Varerne til en nemlig-opskrift (link eller id) for et antal personer, med pris. Varer markeret har_hjemme (salt, olie osv.) er ikke med i prisen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| opskrift | Yes | ||
| personer | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results carry prices and items flagged har_hjemme (salt, oil etc.) are excluded from the price — a non-obvious detail an agent could otherwise misreport. It says nothing about the return shape or what happens when 'personer' is omitted, so a 3.
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 no filler, and the core output (items plus price) is front-loaded. The pricing caveat is well placed as a follow-up. Slightly cryptic phrasing ('Varer markeret har_hjemme') costs a little clarity.
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 simple read-only tool with no output schema and only two parameters, the description covers what the result conceptually contains and one important pricing rule. It leaves gaps around the missing 'personer' default and the structure of the returned items, which matter given there is no output schema to fall back on.
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%, so the description must carry the load; it does clarify that 'opskrift' accepts a link or an id, which the bare string type does not say. It also ties 'personer' to the scaling of quantities. However, it never states the default when 'personer' is null (the schema default), which is the one behavioral ambiguity an agent most needs resolved.
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 concrete verb and resource: it returns the ingredient list ('Varerne') for a specific nemlig recipe, priced for a given number of people. That is enough to tell it apart from the sibling soeg_opskrifter, which searches rather than fetches. It stops short of explicitly naming that relationship, so a 4 rather than a 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?
Usage is only implied: the required 'opskrift' parameter takes a link or id, which hints that a search step (soeg_opskrifter) must come first, but no alternative or precondition is stated. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over other siblings like sammenlign_liste or saet_antal_i_kurv. Adequate context, no explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.