Nutrition MCP

Set profile

set_profile

DestructiveIdempotent

Stores a profile for this conversation so assessments use Dietary Reference Intakes.

Age- and sex-specific U.S. Dietary Reference Intakes replace the generic food-label values. The result lists the resolved daily targets and limits. The profile is held in memory for the conversation, replaces any earlier profile, and is not written to disk.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "age": "<age>",
      "sex": "<sex>"
    },
    "name": "set_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`age`	Yes	Age in years, 1-120.
`sex`	Yes	Sex that selects the reference values.
`activity`	No	Activity level, used only for the calorie estimate. Defaults to moderate.	moderate
`height_cm`	No	Height in centimeters; with weight_kg, adds a calorie estimate and the saturated-fat and sugar limits derived from it.
`weight_kg`	No	Body weight in kilograms; adds a 0.8 g/kg protein target.
`life_stage`	No	Pregnancy and lactation apply only with sex female. Defaults to none.	none

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description explains exactly why: the profile is held in memory for the conversation, replaces any earlier profile, and is never written to disk. That overwrite-plus-ephemeral semantics is real value beyond the flags, though it says nothing about validation failures or what happens if required fields are invalid.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences that front-load the purpose, then the effect on assessments, then the lifetime and persistence semantics. The second sentence about DRI vs. food-label values is slightly redundant but does add contrast; no filler otherwise.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value line is optional, and the description still covers the key stateful behaviors: in-memory scope, overwrite of a prior profile, no disk persistence. For a 6-parameter mutation tool this is nearly complete, with only error/validation behavior left unaddressed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including the female-only constraint on life_stage and the calorie/protein derivations for height, weight and activity. The description only echoes the age/sex axis of the DRI lookup and adds no syntax or interaction detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Uses a specific verb-plus-resource ("Stores a profile") and states the downstream effect: assessments switch to age- and sex-specific Dietary Reference Intakes rather than generic food-label values. It never names the sibling tools it differs from (get_profile, clear_profile), though "replaces any earlier profile" implicitly separates it from a read or clear operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Use is only implied: setting a profile makes subsequent assessments use DRIs, so an agent can infer this should be called before analysis. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of when to prefer clear_profile or get_profile instead, and no note about calling it again mid-conversation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Nutrition MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?