create_commentsAdd a comment to a specific recipe by providing its ID and text. Solve the need to attach notes, feedback, or context directly to any recipe.
Create One
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| recipeId | Yes | ||
| accept-language | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.20.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. "Create One" reveals nothing about side effects, required permissions, response behavior, or even that the operation creates a comment. This is entirely inadequate for a creation operation.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It fails to front-load any useful information and earns no structural credit because every sentence-equivalent is empty of content.
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?
Even though an output schema exists, the description leaves purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and behavior unexplained. For a create operation with no annotations and three parameters, this is critically incomplete and cannot support 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of explanatory text. It does not mention recipeId, text, or accept-language at all, providing no additional meaning beyond the raw parameter names in the schema.
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 "Create One" is a two-word placeholder that essentially restates the verb in the tool name/title without naming the resource being created. It does not clarify that this creates a comment, and it does not distinguish the tool from sibling comment CRUD operations such as list_comments, update_comments_by_item, or delete_comments_by_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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or the difference between creating a comment and using the many related comment/list/get/update/delete siblings. An agent would have no basis for selecting this tool over its peers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.