Skip to main content
Glama

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. For requests like "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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), but the description goes far beyond by disclosing the full status vocabulary (above/at/within/no_upper_limit, plus studied-range statuses), the compound-mineral mapping, EPA+DHA estimation for fish/krill oil, UK NHS reference switching, and the adult-only caveat. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by routing examples and then detailed semantics. It is dense and the later run-on sentences pack many clauses, but nearly every clause (status values, compound field, EPA/DHA, GB handling) carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of explaining return values and it does so thoroughly: status enums, compared_with.reference/ depends_on_label, amount.epa_dha_estimate_mg, and the compound field. An agent has everything needed to interpret results and call the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics on top: which units are accepted (IU for A/D/E, DFE for folate), that amounts are per-day, and that country=GB switches the reference to NHS guidance. That meaning extends beyond the schema field descriptions.

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 precise verb+resource+scope: comparing an ingested amount of a vitamin/mineral against adult RDA and upper limits, with concrete example queries like "is 5000 IU of vitamin D too much?". This is clearly distinguishable from the retrieval-oriented siblings get_nutrient and get_supplement without opening any schema.

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 four example questions give a strong, unambiguous sense of when to reach for this tool, and the GB country branch and probiotic/compound handling indicate the supported contexts. However, it never names the sibling tools or states when NOT to use this one (e.g., for plain nutrient lookup use get_nutrient).

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.