Lists writable recipe properties with types and allowed values, enabling correct configuration of Capture One recipes.
List every writable recipe property with its type and allowed values, for use with co_configure_recipe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by clarifying the tool returns 'type and allowed values' for writable properties, which tells the agent what kind of output to expect despite there being no output schema.
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 focused sentence that leads with the action and resource, then adds the key qualifier ('writable') and the output content ('type and allowed values'). Every word earns its place.
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 parameterless, read-only listing tool, this description is complete: it identifies what is listed, the depth of the information returned, and why an agent would call it. No additional context is necessary to invoke it correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description sensibly focuses on output rather than inputs.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('every writable recipe property'), including the useful detail that it reports type and allowed values. It also connects to a specific downstream tool (co_configure_recipe), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like co_list_recipes or co_get_recipe.
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 phrase 'for use with co_configure_recipe' gives an explicit usage context and tells the agent why it would invoke this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid or conditions for not using it, but the intended use case is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.