Retrieve recipe-book counts for friends, queued, and frozen categories to see how many recipes each contains.
Get recipe-book counts: { friends, queued, frozen }.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_counts"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but there is no explicit statement about side effects, errors, or data freshness. It discloses the output categories but not broader behavioral guarantees.
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, short sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and enumerates the count categories. No filler or redundant wording is present.
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?
Given the lack of parameters and output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns: counts for friends, queued, and frozen. It could clarify the exact result shape, but the core context is sufficient for a simple count retrieval.
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?
There are no parameters and the empty schema is fully covered. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter detail because none exists.
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 a specific action ('Get') and resource ('recipe-book counts'), and enumerates the three categories returned: friends, queued, and frozen. This distinguishes get_counts from sibling list tools by focusing on counts rather than item lists.
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 implies usage when counts are needed rather than full lists, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like list_friends or list_frozen_recipes. No alternative tools are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.