recipe-mcp-server

get_recipe

Fetch a complete recipe by ID, formatted for a cook to read, so you can view ingredients and steps in a personal recipe collection.

Instructions

Fetch one recipe in full, formatted for a cook to read.

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": {
      "recipe_id": "<recipe_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_recipe"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`recipe_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation and 'formatted for a cook to read' gives some output context, but it omits whether missing recipes error, permission requirements, and any rate or access constraints.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It communicates the core action and output intent efficiently.

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 single-resource read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It should at least clarify recipe_id semantics and basic not-found behavior to be fully self-sufficient without annotations.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage for recipe_id, and the description does not explain what recipe_id is, its expected format, or how to obtain it. It only implies that a single recipe is identified.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one recipe') and clarifies the scope with 'in full, formatted for a cook to read.' This distinguishes it reasonably from list_recipes and search_recipes, though those alternatives are not explicitly named.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The wording implies this is for retrieving a single known recipe rather than listing or searching, but it does not state when to use it versus siblings like search_recipes or list_recipes. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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

Deploy Server