List available CyberChef recipes, with optional filters for tag, category, and search terms, to identify suitable data transformations.
List all recipes with optional filtering.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | Filter by tag | |
| limit | No | Maximum results | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| search | No | Search in name/description | |
| category | No | Filter by category |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful scoping context by stating it lists all recipes with optional filtering, but it does not disclose pagination defaults, response shape, or ordering behavior.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler. The primary action, 'List all recipes', is front-loaded and the filtering detail is relevant.
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 documents all five optional parameters and the annotations cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. However, with no output schema, the description does not clarify what a returned recipe entry looks like, whether results are paginated by default, or what ordering is applied. This is minimally adequate but leaves some operational ambiguity.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters like 'Filter by tag', 'Maximum results', and 'Pagination offset' already self-explanatory. The tool description's mention of optional filtering adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses the concrete verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'recipes', while also noting optional filtering. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like cyberchef_recipe_get or cyberchef_list_operations.
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 given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as cyberchef_search, cyberchef_recipe_get, or cyberchef_list_operations. The phrase 'optional filtering' implies some use cases, but the description lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.