get_food_profileRead the personalized household food profile to tailor recipe ideas, meal planning, budgets, servings, cuisines, dislikes, and dietary preferences.
Read the personalized household, cooking, budget, serving, cuisine, dislike, and dietary-preference profile.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds content-level value by enumerating which preference categories are returned, which matters given there is no output schema. No contradiction with the annotations.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The eight-item category list is slightly dense but each item conveys what the caller will receive.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description's enumeration of returned categories is close to sufficient. What is missing is only the routing context relative to get_profile and the update sibling.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to explain beyond confirming the read is unfiltered and household-scoped.
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 (Read) and resource (personalized food profile) and enumerates the profile categories it returns. It is distinguishable from prepare_update_food_profile by the read verb, but it never names siblings or clarifies the boundary with get_profile.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read path for personalization data, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing against get_profile / get_personalized_recommendations which sit right beside it in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.