Skip to main content
Glama
smeet666

mcp-recipes

One dish, as each source writes it

compare_recipes
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare how each source writes a dish, side by side, with ingredients rescaled to your servings. See differences in quantities, measurements, yields, and available fields, without ranking.

Instructions

Take a dish and show how each source writes it, side by side. Each source's closest match is read in full, and all of them can be rescaled to the same number of servings so the ingredient lists stand comparison. The answer states what differs and leaves it there: the quantities each asks for, what each measures in, what each yields, and which fields each source publishes at all. No version is ranked above another. Some sources carry reader ratings and some have no author and no rating by nature, so there is no score they share. When only one source answers, the answer says so and shows that one rather than presenting part of a comparison as the whole of it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dishYesThe dish to compare, in any of the languages the sources publish in.
sectionsNoWhich parts of each version to return. Several full recipes is a lot of text.
servingsNoRescale every version to this many, which is what makes the lists comparable.
max_stepsNoSteps to return per version.
max_step_charsNoCharacters kept per step. Raise it only if a step was cut mid-sentence.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dishYes
notesYes
versionsYes
per_sourceYes
differencesYesWhat differs between the versions, stated as fact. No version is ranked.
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses several behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it reads each source's closest match in full, rescales to same servings, states what differs without ranking, does not score because some sources lack ratings, and handles single-source cases explicitly. This adds significant context beyond the readOnly and idempotent hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and then expands with useful behavioral details. It is longer than the TDQS 4.3 example but justifiably so given the tool's complexity. Some sentences (e.g., the rating philosophy) could be tighter, but all are informative and earn their place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity, the presence of an output schema, and informative annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, how it handles multiple sources, the edge case of a single source, and what the answer will contain. No critical behavioral gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining why 'servings' matters ('so the ingredient lists stand comparison') and why 'sections' defaults to ingredients ('Several full recipes is a lot of text'). This transcends the schema's raw descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Take a dish and show how each source writes it, side by side.' It distinguishes itself from siblings (get_recipe, search_recipes, scale_ingredients) by focusing on comparison rather than retrieval, search, or scaling. The verb 'compare' is implicit in the name and explicit in the description.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for when to use this tool: to compare how different sources write a dish, with no ranking. It also covers the edge case of only one source, saying the answer shows that one instead of a partial comparison. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like 'use get_recipe for a single recipe,' so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/smeet666/mcp-recipes'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server