get_media_recipes_by_recipe_images_by_file_nameRetrieve a stored recipe image by supplying the recipe ID and file name. Use this to access original or resized versions of recipe photos.
Takes in a recipe id, returns the static image. This route is proxied in the docker image and should not hit the API in production
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_name | Yes | ||
| recipe_id | Yes |
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 behavioral disclosure burden. It does add a non-obvious detail: the route is proxied and should not hit the API in production, and it indicates the result is a static image. It does not cover response format, authentication, or error behavior, but the proxy note is meaningful added context.
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 only two sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The second sentence is compact but slightly ambiguous about what 'should not hit the API in production' means for an agent, which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The schema provides useful structure through the UUID format and file_name enum, but the description still omits the role of file_name and does not clarify the output format or what alternative should be used in production. With no output schema and no annotations, these gaps leave the definition incomplete for confident 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 add meaning for the parameters. It restates recipe_id via 'recipe id' and implies the file is an image, but it never mentions the required file_name parameter or explains the three enum variants such as original vs min-original vs tiny-original. This leaves a significant invocation 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 clearly states the tool's action: it takes a recipe id and returns a static image, naming the resource and broadly distinguishing it from asset or timeline media endpoints. However, it omits the required file_name parameter and does not explicitly contrast this tool with get_media_recipes_by_recipe_assets_by_file_name or the timeline variant.
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?
The only usage guidance is the deployment caveat that the route is proxied in the docker image and 'should not hit the API in production.' This tells the agent when not to call the backend, but gives no alternative or criteria for choosing this tool over similar media/asset siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.