Create a meal recipe by selecting a meal category and entering a recipe title. Add an optional description to provide more details for your Skylight family hub.
Create a meal recipe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| frameId | No | ||
| summary | Yes | Recipe title. | |
| description | No | ||
| meal_category_id | Yes | Meal category id (from list_meal_categories, required). |
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 / meal_category_id / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / meal_category_id / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The behavior is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and 'Create' makes the mutating nature clear. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as side effects, validation, or relationship to meal categories.
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 very concise and front-loaded: one sentence, no filler. It loses a point because it is so terse that it omits useful context that would not hurt conciseness.
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 create operation with four parametersley including an undocumented frameId, the description is underspecified. The agent cannot determine the meaning of frameId, what 'description' should contain, or what the expected response or side effects are.
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 50%, with frameId and description lacking schema-level descriptions. The tool description does not compensate or clarify these parameters, leaving two of four parameters semantically incomplete.
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 ('Create') and resource ('a meal recipe'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like skylight_update_recipe, skylight_delete_recipe, and skylight_get_recipe. It is unambiguous about the primary action.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_recipe or list_recipes. The description does not mention prerequisites like obtaining meal_category_id via list_meal_categories, nor does it contrast with creating other entities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.