Lists recipe files with their names and docstrings from the configured recipe directory, so you can discover available recipes before running or editing them.
List recipe files (name + docstring) in the configured recipe directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 full behavioral burden. It conveys that the scope is fixed to the 'configured recipe directory' (no parameter to change it), but says nothing about ordering, recursion into subdirectories, whether docstrings can be missing/empty, error behavior if no directory is configured, or output size limits.
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 the returned fields parenthesized inline. Nothing extraneous and nothing buried.
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 simple zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned at a high level (name + docstring), but leaves gaps on result ordering, docstring absence, and failure modes that an agent may need when deciding what to do with the output.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly frames the directory as configured rather than caller-supplied, which prevents an agent from looking for a path argument.
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?
Specific verb (List) plus resource (recipe files) with an extra detail on the returned payload (name + docstring). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like run_recipe or list_algorithms, so the agent must infer that this is the discovery step rather than the execution step.
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 only implied: listing recipes in the configured directory suggests a discovery-before-run_recipe workflow, but the description never states when to use this rather than run_recipe or how to act on the results. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.