Fetch complete recipe details by numeric ID, saving them for later reference.
Read saved details or fetch and save a recipe by numeric ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recipe_id | Yes |
| 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 indicate non-read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context by revealing the two-mode behavior (reading saved details vs fetching and saving), which is not derivable from annotations alone. No contradiction with annotations.
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 filler. Every word contributes to conveying the purpose and behavior.
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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (read or fetch-and-save) and the input type. It could be more explicit about when to use it versus sibling search tools, but the output schema handles return-value documentation.
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?
The schema has no description for recipe_id (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It mentions 'numeric ID', which aligns with the schema pattern, and clarifies that the ID identifies a recipe. However, it adds little beyond what the schema pattern already conveys.
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 action (read or fetch-and-save) on a recipe by numeric ID, which clearly distinguishes it from search tools that take text criteria or random selection. It is not a tautology and names the resource and input scope.
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 use when you have a numeric recipe ID, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_recipes or get_random_recipe, nor does it state when not to use it. The when-to-use is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.