CookUnity MCP

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the core behavioral traits. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains the default date behavior ('Defaults to next Monday'), describes the different return formats (JSON vs Markdown), and provides error handling guidance. It doesn't contradict annotations and adds useful operational 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 well-structured with clear sections (description, args, returns, examples, error handling) and front-loads the core purpose. While comprehensive, some information (like the detailed parameter descriptions) could be considered redundant given the 100% schema coverage. However, the structure helps readability and all content serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple parameters, different output formats) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides excellent completeness: it explains both return formats in detail, provides parameter requirements and defaults, includes practical examples, and offers error handling guidance. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, making this description complete for agent use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it restates the parameter requirements ('At least one of meal_id or inventory_id is required') and provides examples, but doesn't add significant semantic context that isn't already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Get full details') and resource ('for a specific meal'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cookunity_search_meals (which searches) or cookunity_get_menu (which lists multiple meals). It enumerates the detailed information returned (allergens, ingredients, nutrition facts, diet tags, chef info), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: it specifies that at least one of meal_id or inventory_id is required, mentions the default date behavior, and in the Error Handling section explicitly suggests using cookunity_search_meals when a meal is not found. This gives clear context for when to use this tool and when to consider alternatives.

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