recipe_getInspect a recipe's typed configuration and execution requirements to verify settings before training. Use it to retrieve required parameters and prepare runs accurately.
Inspect a recipe's typed configuration and execution requirements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recipe | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, and an output schema exists, so return contents need not be described. The phrase 'typed configuration and execution requirements' adds some framing about what is inspected, but nothing about resolution failure behavior when a recipe name is unknown, which is the main behavioral gap.
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?
A single tight sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the action and resource. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameter.
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 output schema and readOnlyHint cover return shape and safety, so those need not be repeated. What remains missing is the identity/format of the 'recipe' argument and any hint about sibling selection, leaving the definition only minimally viable for invocation.
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 0% and the single 'recipe' parameter carries no description in either the schema or the tool description. The description never clarifies whether this is a recipe name, ID, alias, or path, 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?
States a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('a recipe') plus what is returned: 'typed configuration and execution requirements'. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like recipes_list, recipe_plan, or recipe_start, which an agent could easily confuse for this operation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus recipes_list (enumerate recipes) or recipe_plan/recipe_start (act on a recipe). No prerequisites or conditions are stated, leaving routing entirely to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.