Japan Food DB
Server Details
Resolve Japanese food names to nutrition facts. All 2,538 foods from Japan's official tables.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one for searching foods by name, the other for retrieving detailed nutrition facts for a specific food ID. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: search_food and get_nutrition. The naming is predictable and clear.
With only two tools, the server feels minimal for a food database. While it may serve a basic query need, the thin toolset borders on inadequate for broader use.
The domain is querying Japanese food nutrition, but search_food already returns nutrition per 100g, making get_nutrition potentially redundant. Missing features like category filtering or recipe lookup are notable gaps.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_nutritionGet nutrition facts by food IDAInspect
Get nutrition facts per 100g for a food ID returned by search_food.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Food ID from search_food, e.g. "chicken-breast" |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond 'per 100g'. It implies a read operation but doesn't confirm safety or other properties.
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?
Single sentence, no redundancy, front-loaded with key 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?
For a simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, description adequately explains purpose, input, and return value scope.
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 already documents the single parameter with description and example; description adds no extra parameter info. Baseline 3 due to high schema coverage.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'nutrition facts', and specifies 'per 100g for a food ID returned by search_food', distinguishing it from sibling tool.
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?
Description explicitly states tool should be used with a food ID from search_food, providing clear usage context. Could be improved by mentioning when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_foodSearch Japanese foodsAInspect
Search Japanese foods by name (Japanese or romaji-free text). Returns candidates with nutrition per 100g, source, and disclaimer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 5) | |
| query | Yes | Food name in Japanese, e.g. "鶏むね肉" or "ごはん" |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses return content but omits behavioral details like no-results behavior, pagination, or rate limits. Basic info is present but insufficient for complete transparency.
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?
Single sentence clearly states purpose, input format, and return content. No unnecessary words, well-structured for quick parsing.
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?
Despite lack of output schema, description adequately covers return values (candidates with nutrition, source, disclaimer). Missing details like sorting or pagination, but acceptable for a simple search tool. No annotations to supplement.
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 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (query with examples, limit with default). Description adds no extra value beyond schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
Description clearly states the tool searches Japanese foods by name, specifies input as Japanese or romaji-free text, and mentions return content (nutrition per 100g, source, disclaimer). This differentiates it from the sibling get_nutrition, which likely retrieves specific nutrition details.
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: use search_food to find foods by name, then get_nutrition for details. However, no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!