get_recipe_contributionReads whether an account contributes an owned recipe and returns the sharing disclosure for a meal request. Does not grant permission.
Read whether this account contributes an owned recipe, and the sharing disclosure. Does not grant permission.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meal_request_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The line 'Does not grant permission' adds a genuine boundary beyond annotations, but the description says nothing about what the 'sharing disclosure' contains, any auth/scoping requirements, or failure behavior.
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 with the read scope front-loaded and the permission caveat placed last where it acts as a guardrail. No filler, though the brevity leaves content gaps rather than earning full marks.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should describe the return shape (boolean contribution state plus disclosure contents), which it only gestures at. Combined with the undocumented parameter, this is minimally viable but not complete.
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% for the single meal_request_id parameter, and the description supplies no meaning for it at all – not even that it identifies the meal request whose contribution state is read. With one undocumented parameter the description fails to compensate for the schema 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 verb 'Read' plus the object 'recipe contribution status' and 'sharing disclosure' gives a workable purpose, but 'contribution' and 'sharing disclosure' overlap heavily with the sibling get_recipe_sharing, and the description never distinguishes the two. An agent must guess from the name alone which read tool to pick.
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?
'Does not grant permission' implicitly tells the agent this is not the prepare_contribute_recipe action path, which is useful routing. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no reference to the closely-named siblings it must be chosen over.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.