Add a recipe's ingredients to a grocery list by specifying the recipe ID and optional list ID, ensuring all needed items are captured for shopping.
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?
The annotations already indicate that this is a mutating but non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds modest context by clarifying that the action adds ingredient items to a grocery list, but it does not disclose behaviors like duplicate handling, overwriting, or failure outcomes.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core 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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits the role of id, leaves frameId unexplained, and does not mention default-list behavior beyond the schema's list_id description, leaving important invocation details to inference.
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%, with only list_id documented. The description does not explain that id is the recipe identifier or clarify the purpose of frameId, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.
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 action ('Add'), a precise object ('a recipe's ingredients'), and a destination ('a grocery list'), clearly conveying what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like skylight_add_list_item by targeting recipe ingredients rather than a single arbitrary item.
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?
No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool over alternatives such as skylight_add_list_item or skylight_create_list. The intended scenario is implied by the name and description, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or preference rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.