food-recipe-mcp
Server Details
Semantic search across 50,000+ food recipes with hybrid retrieval and reranking.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- AIDataNordic/Food-Recipe-MCP
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- food-recipe-mcp
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 4.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
The two tools serve completely different purposes: a simple connectivity check and a full-text recipe search. There is no ambiguity or overlap between them.
The tool names use different styles: 'ping' is a single non-descriptive verb, while 'search_recipes' follows a verb_noun pattern. The inconsistency is notable given the small set.
With only 2 tools, the server feels underdeveloped for a recipe database of 50k entries. A single search tool plus a health check is minimal; agents likely need additional operations for full functionality.
The tool surface is incomplete: it offers only search and a ping. Missing common operations like fetching a specific recipe by ID, adding/removing favorites, or filtering by categories beyond what's in search parameters.
Available Tools
2 toolspingBRead-onlyInspect
Simple connectivity test. Returns a greeting to confirm the server is running.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Arbitrary label included in the response, e.g. 'healthcheck' | world |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description lacks details on side effects, read-only nature, or return format, leaving ambiguity.
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?
Extremely concise two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.
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?
Adequate for a simple tool, though could mention the return value or output schema for completeness.
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?
Description does not explain the 'name' parameter or its default value; schema coverage is 0%, so description should compensate but fails.
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?
Clearly states the tool is a connectivity test that returns a greeting, effectively distinguishing from sibling 'search_recipes'.
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?
Implicitly for checking server status, but no explicit guidance on when to use or not use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_recipesARead-onlyInspect
Search a database of recipes using hybrid semantic search (dense + sparse) with reranking.
The database contains ~50,000 recipes from Food.com covering a wide range of cuisines, meal types, and cooking styles. Recipes include nutritional information, difficulty ratings, and user ratings.
Use natural language in the query to describe what you are looking for — cuisine, style, main ingredient, occasion, or mood all work well. Norwegian and English are both supported natively. Examples: 'quick Italian pasta for weeknight dinner' 'Swedish meatballs with gravy' 'healthy high-protein chicken bowl' 'easy chocolate cake for beginners' 'something with salmon and lemon' 'Indian curry chicken' 'traditional Norwegian kjøttkaker' 'hurtig pasta med kylling' 'enkel sjokoladekake'
Args: query: What you are looking for — describe the dish, cuisine, main ingredient, cooking style or mood freely. Any language is supported. diet: Optional — filter by dietary requirement: 'vegetarian', 'vegan', 'gluten-free', 'dairy-free', 'low-carb', 'keto', 'paleo' max_minutes: Optional — maximum total time in minutes, e.g. 30 difficulty: Optional — 'easy', 'medium' or 'hard' servings: Optional — not used for filtering (servings vary), but include in query for scaling context, e.g. 'pasta dish for 6 people' limit: Number of results to return after reranking (default 5, max 20)
Returns: List of recipes ranked by relevance. Each result includes rerank_score, rrf_score (hybrid fusion), title, total_time, difficulty, diet labels, ingredients, instructions, nutrition, rating, and source URL context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| diet | No | Optional dietary filter: vegetarian, vegan, gluten-free, dairy-free, low-carb, keto, or paleo | |
| limit | No | Number of results to return after reranking (1–20, default 5) | |
| query | Yes | Natural language description of what you want, e.g. 'quick Italian pasta' or 'enkel sjokoladekake' | |
| servings | No | Not used for filtering — include serving size context in query instead, e.g. 'pasta for 6 people' | |
| difficulty | No | Optional difficulty filter: easy, medium, or hard | |
| max_minutes | No | Optional maximum total cooking time in minutes, e.g. 30. Use 0 for no limit |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: hybrid search (dense+sparse), reranking, return fields (rerank_score, rrf_score, etc.), and that servings don't filter. It also notes the database size and variety.
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?
Well-structured with clear sections: purpose, database context, usage examples, parameter definitions, and return description. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy. Efficiently front-loads the core purpose.
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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, hybrid search, reranking, no output schema), the description is exceptionally complete. It details the database, search algorithm, parameter usage, and output format, leaving no significant 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides comprehensive semantics for all 6 parameters. It explains each parameter's purpose, acceptable values (e.g., diet lists options, difficulty lists levels), defaults, and constraints (limit max 20, max_minutes as integer).
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: searching a database of recipes using hybrid semantic search with reranking. It identifies the source (Food.com, ~50,000 recipes) and differentiates from the only sibling tool ('ping') by being the sole search-oriented 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?
Extensive guidance on when to use, including natural language queries, supported languages (Norwegian and English), and multiple concrete examples. It clarifies that servings is for context, not filtering, and explains optional parameters like diet, difficulty, and max_minutes.
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!
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.