Get ReciPal recipes with IDs, names, and tags. Paginate through results because each request returns at most 20 items.
List recipes from ReciPal with IDs, names, and tags. Paginated; per_page max 20. Larger values are silently reduced to 20, so callers must paginate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 1-based page number (default 1). | |
| per_page | No | Items per page (default 20, max 20; larger values are silently reduced). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the pagination behavior, the hard cap of 20, the silent reduction of larger values, and the need to paginate. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the bare schema and accurately signals that this is a read-only list operation.
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?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads what the tool returns, and the second adds the essential pagination warning. Every word earns its place.
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 list tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers what is returned, the pagination constraint, and the caller's responsibility. No output schema exists, but the described fields are enough for an agent to understand the result shape.
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 100%, so the schema already explains page and per_page in full. The description's mention of per_page max 20 and silent reduction mainly reiterates what the schema says, adding no new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('List'), a concrete resource ('recipes from ReciPal'), and the included fields ('IDs, names, and tags'). This clearly distinguishes it from the relevant siblings, such as get_recipe for fetching a single recipe or list_recipe_ingredients for a different resource.
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?
The description clearly establishes when to use this tool: to list recipes, with the important caveat that results are paginated and per_page is capped at 20. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for choosing get_recipe instead, but the list-vs-get context is strongly implied by the wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.