Skip to main content
Glama

Supplement Check

by io.github.GoodTurnStudio
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Compare an amount of a vitamin or mineral with the adult RDA and upper limit

check_dose
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare an amount of a vitamin or mineral with the adult RDA and upper limit. Use for "is 5000 IU of vitamin D too much?", "is 500 mg of magnesium glycinate safe?", "is 10 mg of melatonin a lot?" or "is 300 mg of caffeine too much?". Handles IU, mcg, mg and g, including IU for vitamins A, D and E and DFE for folate. For vitamins and minerals, status is above, at, within or no_upper_limit; when the name is a compound (magnesium glycinate, ferrous sulfate, zinc gluconate) the compound field also gives how much of the mineral the compound holds, as US and UK labels list the mineral itself; when only one reading is over the limit, the say line gives both and compared_with.depends_on_label is true. Fish oil, cod liver oil and krill oil amounts are the oil weight, so EPA plus DHA is estimated (amount.epa_dha_estimate_mg). With country=GB the limit is the NHS guidance (compared_with.reference is UK (NHS), with us_upper_limit alongside). For other supplements the answer compares with an official ceiling where one exists (caffeine) or the amounts studies have used, with status above, at, within, above_studied_range, within_studied_range, below_studied_range or no_set_amount, plus cautions. Adult values only, with a note

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoThe whole question instead, for example 5000 IU vitamin D.
unitNoIU, mcg, mg, g, mcg DFE, or billion (CFU) for probiotics. Defaults to IU for vitamin D amounts of 200 or more, otherwise the usual unit.
amountNoThe amount taken per day, in the unit given.
countryNoTwo-letter country code. GB compares with NHS guidance and gives UK amounts. Default from the request.
nutrientNoThe vitamin, mineral or supplement, for example vitamin D, magnesium or melatonin.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare it safe, idempotent and read-only, yet the description adds substantial behavior: the status enum values for both nutrients and other supplements, compound handling, EPA+DHA estimation for fish oils, and the country=GB switching to NHS guidance. This is well beyond what annotations or schema convey.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose and examples are front-loaded, which is good, but the body is a dense run-on with sentence fragments ('For other supplements the answer compares...') and a truncated final clause ('with a note'). Every sentence is informative, but the structure makes it hard to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so: status values, compared_with.reference/depends_on_label, amount.epa_dha_estimate_mg and the compound field are all explained. For a zero-required-parameter tool with optional inputs, nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so unit/amount/country/nutrient are already documented. The description restates unit handling (IU, mcg, mg, g, DFE) but adds little syntax or defaulting detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: comparing an intake amount against adult RDA and upper limit, with four concrete example questions that make the scope unmistakable. It is clearly distinct from the sibling lookups (get_nutrient, get_supplement) because it returns a safety verdict rather than a nutrient fact.

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 example questions ('is 5000 IU of vitamin D too much?', 'is 300 mg of caffeine too much?') give strong implicit guidance on when to reach for this tool. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use statement or routing to the sibling tools for plain nutrient lookups.

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

All Supplement Check toolsInspect
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