List saved recipes with ingredients and search terms to review your recipe library or plan meals. Returns onboarding guidance if no recipes exist yet.
List saved recipes with ingredients, metadata, and search terms. USE WHEN: reviewing recipe library, checking what's available for meal planning. Returns onboarding guidance if no recipes exist yet.
| 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?
readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description goes beyond it by disclosing the payload and the empty-state behavior (returns onboarding guidance when no recipes exist), which is genuinely useful context for an agent. It says nothing about ordering, pagination or result limits, so it is not exhaustive.
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, all front-loaded: purpose first, then usage, then the non-obvious empty-state behavior. No filler and nothing repeated from the name or annotations.
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 input parameters, a read-only annotation and no output schema, the description is nearly self-sufficient — it explains both the normal return contents and the zero-recipe case. Only ordering/pagination details are absent, which is a minor gap.
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 there is nothing to disambiguate and the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). No syntax or format details are needed here.
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 (List) plus the resource (saved recipes) and enumerates what comes back (ingredients, metadata, search terms). It is clearly distinguishable from the write-oriented siblings add_recipe/remove_recipe and the analysis tool score_recipes, though it never names them explicitly.
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 two concrete contexts (reviewing the recipe library, checking availability for meal planning), which is clear positive guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it misses the top band.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.