Create a new recipe tag to categorize and organize meals. Provide a tag name and start adding it to recipes.
Create a new recipe tag.
Args: name: Tag name
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Create a new recipe tag' clearly indicates a mutation that creates an entity, though it does not mention duplicate handling, authorization, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a simple one-parameter creation tool with an output schema, this is adequate but not rich.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Args' line is minimal and directly useful, with no redundant content.
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?
For a one-parameter creation tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential input and purpose. It would be slightly more complete with a note about duplicate tag names or relationship to get_tags, but those gaps are not critical for initial 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?
The JSON Schema only defines 'name' as a required string with no description. The description compensates by explaining that name is the tag name, which is meaningful and sufficient for the single parameter.
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 states a specific action ('Create') and a specific resource ('new recipe tag'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from read tools like get_tags and from other creation tools like create_category or create_recipe.
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 verb 'Create' implies the tool is for adding a new recipe tag, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.