Get nutrition facts by food ID
get_nutritionGet nutrition facts per 100g for a food ID returned by search_food.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Food ID from search_food, e.g. "chicken-breast" |
Japan Food DB
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the tool gets nutrition facts per 100g, which is adequate for a simple retrieval, but does not mention potential errors, authentication, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, achieving high efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the unit (per 100g) and source of ID, but omits details on the structure of returned data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'id' is described in the schema with an example. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (get), the resource (nutrition facts per 100g), and the input requirement (food ID from search_food), distinguishing it from the sibling search_food.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after search_food and with a specific food ID. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear given only one sibling exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
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.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: search_food and get_nutrition. The naming is predictable and clear.
Tool Count3/5
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.
Completeness3/5
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.