recipe_details_toolRetrieve complete recipe details with all ingredients and exact amounts. Enter a recipe name or ID to view full preparation data from Grocy.
Show full details for a recipe including all ingredients and amounts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recipe | Yes | Recipe name (e.g. "Spaghetti Bolognese") or numeric recipe ID. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Show' clearly implies a non-mutating, read-only operation, and the phrase 'including all ingredients and amounts' sets expectations about what is returned. It does not discuss error behavior, but for a simple getter this is a reasonable level of transparency.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately communicates the action, the target resource, and the key content of the output.
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 one-parameter read tool with a complete input schema and an output schema present, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could be enhanced by explaining how to pick this tool over related recipe tools, but that gap is already covered under usage guidelines.
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%, and the parameter description already explains that the recipe can be a name or numeric ID. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's action ('Show full details') and resource ('a recipe'), and specifies the content scope ('including all ingredients and amounts'). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like recipes_list_tool, but the focus on a single recipe's details is unambiguous enough.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as recipe_consume_preview_tool or recipes_list_tool. With many recipe-related siblings present, an agent must infer usage context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.