Cookidoo MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Recipe Details

get_recipe_details

Read-only

Fetch complete Cookidoo recipe details—ingredients, cooking steps, and times—using a recipe ID to review or plan a meal.

Instructions

Get the full details of a Cookidoo catalogue recipe: ingredients, steps, times.

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_id": "<recipe_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_recipe_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`recipe_id`	Yes	The Cookidoo recipe ID (e.g. "r59322", "r907015")

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the returned content types, which the output schema largely covers anyway, and is silent on behavior for unknown or custom recipe IDs and on any authentication needs.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the returned fields listed last. Nothing is padded and nothing essential is buried.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, this is nearly sufficient: the agent knows what it fetches and roughly what comes back. The only gap is silence on invalid or out-of-scope IDs, which is a minor omission given the structured fields available.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single recipe_id parameter carries its own description with example values, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the mild constraint that the ID must refer to a catalogue (not custom) recipe.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get details of a recipe) and enumerates the payload it returns (ingredients, steps, times). The qualifier 'Cookidoo catalogue recipe' is the only thing separating it from the sibling get_custom_recipe, and that separation is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing tells the agent to prefer this over get_custom_recipe for custom recipes or over search_recipes when it lacks an ID. The word 'catalogue' weakly implies the scope, but the agent must infer the routing rule.

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