Retrieve the complete configuration of a Capture One output recipe, including format, scaling, sharpening, destination, naming, metadata, crop, and watermark settings.
Full settings for one output recipe: file format and quality, scaling, output sharpening, destination and naming, metadata inclusion, crop handling and watermark.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Recipe name (case-insensitive) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope of the returned data but does not disclose additional behaviors such as failure modes, persistence effects, or access requirements, which is acceptable given the 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 entire description is one compact, front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the resource and spells out the contained settings. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary qualification.
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, idempotent single-parameter lookup, the description provides enough detail to set agent expectations about the rich response. A slightly more explicit mention of the return nature could push it to 5, but the field list already forms a useful mental model.
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 already documents the only parameter, 'name', with a description and 100% coverage. The tool description confirms the object is 'one output recipe' but does not add new detail about the parameter. The baseline of 3 applies because schema does the heavy lifting.
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 resource ('one output recipe') and enumerates the content of the returned settings (file format, quality, scaling, sharpening, destination, metadata, crop, watermark). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as co_list_recipes and co_get_variant, which operate on different data.
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 use case is implied: call this when you need the full configuration of a specific recipe, not when you need the list of recipes. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name an alternative such as co_list_recipes, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.