Fetch and save a random recipe. Each call returns a different dish, providing fresh meal ideas for planning.
Fetch and save one random recipe. Each call can return a different result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| tags | No | ||
| cuisine | Yes | ||
| category | Yes | ||
| image_url | No | ||
| source_url | No | ||
| ingredients | Yes | ||
| youtube_url | No | ||
| instructions | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent (idempotentHint=false) behavior. The description adds that it 'saves' a recipe (a side effect) and that each call can differ (consistent with idempotent=false). It does not provide additional behavioral context like rate limits, side effects on data, or prerequisites. Since annotations cover the core safety profile, the description adds only marginal value.
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?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action and the variable output are stated immediately. Every word contributes to the tool's understanding.
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 no parameters and an output schema that defines the return, the description is fully sufficient. It conveys the tool's purpose, side effect (saving), and variability. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it is missing.
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, so the description has nothing to add beyond the empty schema. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details and keeps the tool's call signature self-evident.
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?
Clearly states a specific action (fetch and save) on a specific resource (one random recipe). The 'random' qualifier distinguishes it from search_recipes and get_recipe_details, which are targeted lookups. No ambiguity about what this tool does.
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 a use case (when you need a random recipe) but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like search_recipes or get_recipe_details. It lacks any 'when not to use' guidance or alternative references, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.