recipe_historyReview your Made It history to see which cocktails you make often or rate well. Filter by minimum rating and set a result limit.
What the user has actually made and how they rated it, from their "Made It" history. Use for questions like what they drink most or which recipes they rated highest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| minRating | No | Only recipes averaging at least this |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the data source ('Made It' history) and that ratings are included, which is useful, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, default limit behavior, or whether the result is a full or filtered set.
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?
Two tight sentences with the resource statement front-loaded and an immediately useful 'use for' clause. No filler, though the second sentence is more illustrative than specification.
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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned (made recipes plus ratings). It falls short on ordering, defaults, and result shape, which an agent needs to call 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?
Schema coverage is only 50%: minRating is described in the schema but limit is bare. The description adds no meaning for either parameter — it does not explain limit's role, default, or ordering, nor clarify that minRating filters on average rating as the schema says.
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 the specific resource: the user's 'Made It' history with their ratings, and gives concrete query examples (most-drunk, highest-rated). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_recipes or what_can_i_make, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
It offers example question types that imply when the tool applies, but never states when NOT to use it or which sibling handles adjacent needs (e.g., searching recipes vs. personal history). Usage is implied rather than routed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.