Retrieve a recipe's ordered section structure by recipe ID, returning each section's type, title, and job without copy or HTML.
Return ordered section structure for a recipe id (type, title, job). No copy, no HTML.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recipeId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by clarifying the response is structural only ('No copy, no HTML' and 'ordered'), but says nothing about failure behavior or how deeply nested/ordered the sections are.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and expected output, with the 'No copy, no HTML' constraint tacked on efficiently. No wasted text.
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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the return fields and the structural-only nature. Only a hint about the id's origin/format is missing.
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%, so the description must compensate. It names the 'recipe id' concept, but adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond the schema's recipeId:string, leaving the required parameter thinly documented.
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 ('Return') and resource ('ordered section structure for a recipe id') and even enumerates the returned fields (type, title, job), which lets an agent distinguish it from the template/section-generation siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast against, keeping it just below a 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?
Usage is implied by the scope ('No copy, no HTML'), which signals when NOT to use it if content is needed, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative among list_templates / generate_lp_sections.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.