search_recipesFind recipes from Picnic and your saved collection by search term, returning IDs, names, durations, and dietary labels to help you choose meals.
Search Picnic's own recipes and the user's recipes. Returns id, name, duration and labels such as 'Vegan'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Search term, e.g. 'linsen' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a return-field summary (id, name, duration, labels) which substitutes meaningfully for the absent output schema — more than the annotations provide. It stops short of noting result ordering or whether label filters are supported.
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?
Two tight sentences: what is searched, then what comes back. The most important information (scope) is front-loaded and no sentence is padding.
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?
For a two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and the data scope, which is the essential missing piece. Remaining gaps are the undocumented 'limit' parameter and matching behavior, which are minor but non-trivial for an open-world search.
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 coverage is only 50%: 'query' is documented in the schema but 'limit' has no description anywhere. The description gives no guidance on query syntax (substring? fuzzy? multilingual, given the German example), nor on the limit range of 1–20 or what happens on overflow, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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 states a specific verb+resource ('Search ... recipes') and even scopes the search to two corpora: Picnic's own recipes and the user's recipes. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search_products or get_recipe, but the resource word 'recipes' plus the scope makes it clearly separable.
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 scope statement ('Picnic's own recipes and the user's recipes') implies when this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as search_products or get_recipe for a known id. Usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.