Skip to main content
Glama
smeet666

mcp-recipes

Read one recipe, optionally rescaled

get_recipe
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a complete recipe by ID: ingredients, steps, times, nutrition, and more, with optional rescaling for any number of servings.

Instructions

Read one recipe in full: its ingredients, its steps, what it yields, and whatever times, rating and nutrition its source publishes. 'id' must come from search_recipes. It names the source, so this reads the right one without guessing; an identifier no source would have minted is refused, because sending it anywhere would answer about the wrong dish. Pass 'servings' to rescale. Quantities land where a kitchen can follow them: an egg stays whole, anything that pours or cuts can halve, a small measurement moves to a smaller unit before it is rounded, and anything unmultipliable is flagged rather than scaled. A page that states no number of servings comes back as published and says so, because dividing by a yield nobody wrote would answer for a number of people the page never claimed. 'sections' decides what comes back, and 'sections_omitted' names what was left out: a field belonging to an omitted section is empty because nobody asked for it, never because the page states nothing. A field a source does not publish is null, never zero. Credit the source and link the url when you repeat any of it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesFrom search_recipes, such as 'marmiton:44078' or 'cookbook:Cookbook:Carbonara'.
sectionsNoWhich parts to return. A full recipe is a lot of text, so this defaults to two.
servingsNoRescale to this many. Left out, the quantities come back as published.
max_stepsNoSteps to return. The answer says how many more there are.
max_step_charsNoCharacters kept per step. Raise it only if a step was cut mid-sentence.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesYes
recipeYes
id_read_asYesHow a raw identifier was routed, when it was not spelled with its source.
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this read-only and non-destructive, but the description goes far beyond them: it discloses identifier provenance/rejection, intricate rescaling rules (egg stays whole, unit changes, unmultipliable flagged), handling of missing servings, sections omission semantics, null vs zero, and attribution requirements. This is exemplary transparency.

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 core purpose and each section adds useful detail. However, it is quite verbose with rhetorical flourishes ('Quantities land where a kitchen can follow them', 'because dividing by a yield nobody wrote...') that could be trimmed without losing substance. Still, the structure is clear and logical.

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 output schema and annotations, the description covers all critical invocation nuances: identity provenance, scaling edge cases, sections behavior, null semantics, and attribution. It is thorough enough for an agent to use the tool correctly in all described scenarios.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning to 'id' (must be from search_recipes, otherwise refused), 'servings' (rescaling behavior), and 'sections' (omission semantics), going well beyond the schema's field 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read one recipe in full' and clarifies optional rescaling. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by framing it as the full read operation, while search_recipes finds, scale_ingredients scales, and compare_recipes compares.

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?

It gives a strong precondition: 'id' must come from search_recipes, and explains why. It also states 'Pass servings to rescale' and 'sections decides what comes back,' setting clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so it misses the top tier.

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