Check ingredient stock fulfillment for a specific recipe or all recipes to see available and missing items before cooking.
Recipe stock fulfillment. action one is GET /api/recipes/{recipeId}/fulfillment. all is GET /api/recipes/fulfillment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| recipe_id | No | Required when action is one. |
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=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description only repeats GET endpoint paths and adds no behavioral context about what fulfillment data is returned, whether it involves computation, or any auth/rate-limit considerations.
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?
The description is short and front-loaded with no filler, but it uses terse endpoint notation rather than clear prose. It is concise to the point of under-specification, leaving the agent to infer the tool's actual behavior from Grocy API paths.
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 explain what fulfillment data is returned, but it does not. It also omits the query parameter semantics and any comparison to sibling recipe tools, making it incomplete for correct tool selection and 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 only 33%, so the description must compensate for underspecified parameters. It clarifies the action mapping ('one' vs 'all') and indirectly shows recipe_id in the path, but it does not explain the 'query' array parameter at all.
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 description largely restates the tool name ('Recipe stock fulfillment') rather than stating a clear verb and object, such as retrieving stock fulfillment for a recipe. The endpoint paths imply GET operations, but it does not explain what 'fulfillment' means or how this differs from sibling recipe tools like grocy_recipe_consume.
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 description explains the two action values but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention grocy_recipe_consume, grocy_recipe_add_missing_to_shoppinglist, or any selection criteria beyond the one/all endpoint split.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.