CyberChef MCP Server

cyberchef_recipe_validate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validates CyberChef recipes before saving, checking operation structure and arguments to identify errors early.

Instructions

Validate a recipe without saving it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "recipe": "<recipe>"
    },
    "name": "cyberchef_recipe_validate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`recipe`	Yes	Recipe to validate

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.6.0Sep 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds the no-save behavior, which is useful, but says nothing about what 'validate' returns or how it signals failure, so some behavioral context is missing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no filler or duplicated schema information. Every phrase earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a validation tool with no output schema, the description does not explain validation behavior (syntax only vs. deep operation/arg validation), error signaling, or whether the recipe is normalized/reported. The nested recipe structure and many sibling tools increase the need for more context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 100% description coverage, including the recipe property marked as 'Recipe to validate', so the description doesn't need to restate parameter meaning. It adds no operational detail about the nested operations/args structure, but baseline 3 is appropriate since schema handles the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Uses a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('recipe') and immediately qualifies that no save occurs, which separates it from create/update/execute siblings. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from recipe_test, so not a full 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'without saving it' implies use for non-persistent validation, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools like recipe_test or recipe_execute. The usage context is only inferable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.