find_foods_by_country
Find African foods associated with a specific African country.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | Yes | Country to search for |
AfriResolve
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Changed1 schema field changed
- changed
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"New value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
- First observed
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description gives no indication of side effects, read-only nature, or any behavioral details. With no annotations to supplement, the description fails to disclose whether this operation is safe and non-mutating.
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 extremely concise with no redundant words, directly stating the tool's function in a single sentence.
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 single-parameter tool, the description is adequately complete. It does not specify output format, but given the simplicity and lack of an output schema, this absence is acceptable. It could mention that results are limited to African foods, but that is already implied.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The 'country' parameter is described as 'Country to search for' in the schema, and the tool description adds that it should be an African country, providing useful context beyond the schema. The singular parameter is well covered.
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 that the tool finds foods associated with a specific country, and specifying 'African' distinguishes it from generic food finders. It is distinct from sibling tools like find_dishes_by_country and find_foods_by_region.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool as opposed to alternatives like find_dishes_by_country or find_foods_by_region. The description does not explain the distinction between foods and dishes or between country and region.
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
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
rank_african_foods and search_african_foods have nearly identical descriptions and field lists, making their boundary unclear. find_dishes_by_country vs find_foods_by_country and find_foods_by_country vs find_foods_by_region also create overlapping selection paths, though the facet descriptions help somewhat.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: find_X_by_Y for faceted lookups, list_african_X for enumerations, resolve_african_X for normalization, and search/rank/get for other operations. There are no mixed naming conventions or camelCase deviations.
Tool Count4/5
Thirteen tools is within a reasonable range for a food and dish knowledge base. However, rank_african_foods and search_african_foods largely duplicate each other, and some find_* variants could be consolidated, so not every tool fully earns its place.
Completeness3/5
The set covers listing, faceted lookup, name resolution, and food search/ranking well, but dishes lack a general keyword search tool equivalent to search_african_foods. There is also no dish category filter, so agents cannot search across all dish metadata without enumerating the full list.