Retrieve finite state machine recipe components like states, events, guards, actions, and transitions as structural metadata for UI composition and validation.
Read finite FSM states, events, guards, actions, or transitions. Recipes are structural metadata, not executable runtime code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| recipe | No | ||
| section | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real semantic context beyond that: recipes are structural metadata, not executable runtime code. It omits pagination behavior (limit/cursor) and any authorization or scope notes, so it is 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 with no filler, and the core capability is front-loaded before the clarifying caveat. Every clause carries information.
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?
With 4 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotation gaps to lean on for return shape, the description leaves an agent guessing about how to identify a recipe and how to page results. The metadata-vs-runtime clarification is valuable but does not fill the operational gaps.
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% for 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Its enumeration of states/events/guards/actions/transitions effectively documents the 'section' enum, but 'recipe', 'limit', and 'cursor' (including the 32-item page cap and cursor-based paging) are left entirely unexplained.
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 ('Read') and enumerates the exact resource kinds (states, events, guards, actions, transitions) it returns, so an agent knows what it gets. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like validate_design or get_design_context, but no sibling appears to overlap this FSM-metadata niche.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The closing clause clarifies what a recipe is but says nothing about when this tool should be selected over validate_composition or other design tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.