handle-mcp

soeg_opskrifter

Read-only

Search Nemlig.com recipes by keyword and return matching recipe names and links; use the recipe-details tool to get ingredients and prices.

Instructions

Søg i nemligs opskrifter. Giver navn og link. Brug hent_opskrift for varer og pris.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "tekst": "<tekst>"
    },
    "name": "soeg_opskrifter"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`antal`	No
`tekst`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety and open-web profile is covered by structured data. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return shape (name and link), but says nothing about result limits, ranking, or what happens when nothing matches.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences in Danish, front-loaded with the purpose and followed immediately by return value and the routing hint. Nothing is redundant or padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only two-parameter search it covers purpose, output, and the sibling hand-off, which is most of what an agent needs. The undocumented 'antal' cap and query behavior leave a real gap 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.

Parameters2/5

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 burden, and it does not: neither 'tekst' (search query semantics, matching behavior) nor 'antal' (result cap, default 5) is mentioned. Only the implicit idea of searching is conveyed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Søg i nemligs opskrifter" names a concrete verb (search) and resource (recipes), and the follow-up sentence states the return payload (name and link). It also names the sibling hent_opskrift that handles the deeper case, so an agent can separate the two tools without reading either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Brug hent_opskrift for varer og pris" gives an explicit alternative and the condition (ingredients and price) that selects it. What is missing is guidance on when this search tool itself is appropriate versus e.g. soeg_varer, and no exclusion is stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.