whats_nextRetrieve recipes flagged as Next Round to see which cocktails you plan to make next, including your upcoming drink queue.
Recipes the user has flagged "Next Round" in Swizzler — the queue of drinks they mean to make next. Use for "what's up next", "what am I making next", "what's in my queue".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clarifies what the flagged set represents, but says nothing about ordering, whether it is read-only, or how many items come back. For a no-annotation tool this is partial coverage only.
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, front-loaded with the core concept before the trigger phrases. Nothing is wasted, though the phrasing is slightly indirect by opening with a noun phrase rather than an action.
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 does well to explain what the returned set represents, and the tool's surface area is small (one optional param). But the undocumented limit parameter is an unaddressed gap, leaving the definition only adequate for correct invocation.
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?
The single parameter (limit, 1–100) has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. With no structured documentation anywhere, the agent gets no guidance on what limit means or its default. The description fails to compensate for the coverage 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 resource — recipes flagged "Next Round" — and defines the domain concept (a queue of drinks the user intends to make next). That cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like what_can_i_make (ingredient-driven) and search_recipes. It stops short of a 5 because the verb is implied rather than stated (it is a noun phrase, not 'List…').
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 provides explicit trigger phrases ('what's up next', 'what am I making next', 'what's in my queue'), which is real routing guidance for an agent matching user intent. It does not, however, name the sibling it is not (what_can_i_make) or state any exclusion condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.