Show all data sources powering Food Intel, with record counts, last update times, origin URLs, and whether MCP tools exist. Full transparency on where every data point comes from.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a read-only operation ('Show') but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, no authentication requirements, or any additional behavioral traits. With no annotation safety net, the coverage is minimal.
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 sentences, front-loaded with action and resource, no extraneous words. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's return content. However, it could mention whether results are paginated or if there are any limits, but for a simple listing tool this is sufficient.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description's job is to explain what the tool returns. It does so thoroughly, listing the fields shown. Baseline of 4 is appropriate given no parameters.
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?
The description uses specific verb 'Show' and clearly identifies the resource ('all data sources powering Food Intel'). It enumerates the details returned (record counts, update times, origin URLs, tool existence), making it distinct from sibling tools like food_search or food_nutrition.
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?
The description implies this tool is for transparency and auditing ('Full transparency'), but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it provide when-not or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a specific aspect of food data: prices, nutrition, recalls, dietary filters, supply chain, etc. Overlaps are minimal and clearly differentiated by scope, such as full nutrition vs. ingredient lists.
All tools consistently use the 'food_' prefix followed by a descriptive snake_case term. While the stems vary between nouns and verbs, the pattern is uniform and predictable.
With 18 tools, the server comprehensively covers the grocery domain including prices, nutrition, recalls, dietary needs, supply chain, and more. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without being overwhelming.
The tool set is remarkably complete, covering search, detailed product info, price comparisons across supply chain, dietary constraints, household meal planning, recalls, receipts, and data source transparency. No critical gaps apparent.