List all flavor constraints declared for a cocktail's slots using the cocktail ID. Inspect which flavor rules apply to each slot for recipe building or validation.
List all flavor constraints declared for a cocktail's slots.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cocktail_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but 'List' does imply a non-destructive read. It says nothing about permissions, pagination, or whether constraints are returned per slot or flattened. The existence of an output schema covers the return shape, keeping this at a modest 3.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource is stated immediately. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than pure conciseness.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the description never clarifies what a 'flavor constraint' is or how it relates to the sibling set/delete tools, leaving gaps an agent would have to guess at.
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 0% and the single required parameter cocktail_id is undocumented in the schema. The phrase 'for a cocktail's slots' implies that the argument identifies the cocktail, so the description partially compensates, but it adds no format or validation detail beyond the obvious.
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) and resource (flavor constraints for a cocktail's slots), which is enough to separate it from the write siblings bar_set_band_constraint, bar_set_point_constraint, and bar_delete_slot_constraint. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it stops short of 5.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The agent must infer from the sibling names that this is the read counterpart to the set/delete constraint tools, and nothing tells it whether bar_describe_slots or bar_get_flavor_profile is the better fit for a related question.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.