Retrieve ingredients from Parsley, up to 20 per call, with optional salable filtering; if truncated, use search or filter by salable.
List ingredients. Returns up to 20 with {items, total, truncated}; each item has id, name, itemNumber, salable. If truncated, prefer search_ingredients or filter by salable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| salable | No | Filter by salable status |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds the meaningful behavioral fact that only up to 20 items are returned and that truncation can occur, which is beyond the annotations. It doesn't explain ordering or pagination mechanics, so it's useful 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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose then return shape then escape hatch. No filler; every clause carries actionable information (cap, fields, alternatives).
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 one-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cap, returned fields, and fallback routing. The only gap is not clarifying ordering or what total represents, but for this complexity level it is nearly complete.
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?
With one optional boolean and 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the salable filter. The description reinforces it as a truncation-mitigation strategy, adding a usage reason beyond the schema's terse label, which is more than baseline.
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+resource ('List ingredients') that directly matches the tool name, and it goes further by describing the result shape and cap. It differentiates from search_ingredients by naming it only as an alternative for truncated results, but the list vs search distinction is implicit rather than explicit.
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?
Explicitly states when to switch to search_ingredients ('If truncated') and mentions filtering by salable as another option, giving clear conditional routing. It stops short of stating when this tool is preferred over search_ingredients in the first place, but the trigger condition is concrete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.