Add a recipe's ingredients to a grocery list. Specify the recipe ID and optional grocery list ID to populate the default or selected list.
Add a recipe's ingredients to a grocery list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| frameId | No | ||
| list_id | No | Target grocery list id; omit for the default grocery list. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.7.1Input schema / properties / list_id / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / list_id / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether ingredients are appended or replace list contents, how duplicates are handled, what permissions are required, or how many items may be created.
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?
A single short sentence with the operation front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.
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 three-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, with 33% parameter coverage and openWorldHint signaling an external service call, it should at least clarify the required id's meaning and whether the operation is idempotent.
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 only 33% (only list_id is documented), so the description carries extra burden. It does implicitly map 'id' to a recipe and 'grocery list' to list_id, but it never disambiguates the required 'id' explicitly and says nothing about frameId, leaving a real gap.
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 names a specific verb and resource pair ('Add a recipe's ingredients to a grocery list'), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed and on what. It does not differentiate itself from the closest sibling, skylight_add_list_item, which also writes into a list, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the name alone.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as adding individual items via skylight_add_list_item. Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.