Fetch a BrewFather recipe by recipe ID to see its summary, target stats, and metric ingredient bill for brewing decisions.
Read one recipe: summary, target stats (batchSize, og, fg, abv, ibu, color, …) and ingredient bill (fermentables, hops, miscs, yeasts). Units are metric. Stats are as last saved in the Brewfather app, so they can be stale after update_recipe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recipe_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: read-only nature is implied by 'Read', the metric unit convention is stated, and the staleness-after-update_recipe caveat is a genuine behavioral warning. It stops short of auth/permission behavior or error conditions.
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?
Front-loaded with the core action in the first clause, and each subsequent phrase adds return-shape or staleness detail rather than filler. The parenthetical field list is slightly dense but earns its place by telling the agent what 'stats' and 'bill' contain.
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?
With no output schema, the description rightly compensates by describing the return payload (summary, stats, ingredient bill) and units. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only identifier sourcing and error behavior are absent.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required recipe_id, and the description adds no format, source, or example for that identifier. 'Read one recipe' does establish that exactly one identifier is needed, but no semantics beyond what the parameter name 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Read one recipe') and immediately enumerates the returned payload: summary, target stats, and ingredient bill. The scope ('one') implicitly separates it from find_recipes, so an agent can route without opening a schema.
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?
Usage is only implied: the staleness note hints the tool is best called after data settles, and update_recipe is named as the cause of stale data. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over find_recipes or when not to call it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.