Retrieve household config including people, dietary restrictions, preferred stores, and servings before meal planning. Returns setup guidance if not configured.
Get household config: people, dietary restrictions, preferred stores, servings. USE WHEN: checking current setup before meal planning, verifying store preferences. Returns onboarding guidance if not yet configured.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it discloses the fallback response ('returns onboarding guidance if not yet configured'), which tells the agent how to handle the unconfigured case. No permission or rate-limit detail, but for a zero-param read tool this is solid.
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?
Three tight sentences: what it returns, when to use it, and the edge-case behavior, all front-loaded. No filler, no repetition of the name, every sentence earns its place.
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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so by listing the config fields plus the unconfigured fallback. Missing only minor edge cases (e.g., error conditions or auth requirements), but for a simple read tool it is essentially 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing to disambiguate, and the description correctly describes the returned content rather than implying any inputs.
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 (get) and resource (household config) and enumerates the returned contents: people, dietary restrictions, preferred stores, servings. This clearly separates it from siblings like update_household, get_pantry, or list_stores without needing to open a schema.
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 'USE WHEN:' clause gives concrete triggering contexts (checking setup before meal planning, verifying store preferences), which is more than most read tools offer. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name update_household as the alternative for making changes, but the intended context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.