Skip to main content
Glama

Recall Kitchen

by io.github.adamdecaf

check_tracked_products

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check this API key's watch patterns and inventory against current indexed recalls (including historical notices). Does not create notifications. Generic patterns such as food or hazard only match in titles. Requires an API key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNomaximum matches to return
offsetNonumber of matches to skip

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
offsetYes
matchesYes
messageNo
nextOffsetNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it does not create notifications, generic patterns like 'food' or 'hazard' only match in titles, and an API key is required. This adds real context about side effects, matching semantics, and auth requirements.

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 three sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by high-value caveats about notifications, pattern matching, and authentication. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the operation's scope, side effects, matching behavior, and authentication requirement. An output schema exists, so return values are already documented. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 both the limit and offset parameters are already fully documented with defaults, min, max, and descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, which is acceptable at the baseline of 3.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('check') and resource ('this API key's watch patterns and inventory against current indexed recalls'), and it explicitly notes that no notifications are created. However, it does not name or contrast any sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 description gives clear context: use this tool to check an API key's tracked products/inventory against recalls, including historical notices. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough to imply the right usage.

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

All Recall Kitchen toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear, distinct resource-action boundaries (inventory vs. watch patterns vs. notifications vs. search). The search tools overlap somewhat—especially search_product_recalls_by_upc, search_product_recalls_from_image, and search_recalls_by_identifier—but their input types and intent are described well enough to avoid major confusion.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority follow a predictable verb_noun snake_case pattern (add_inventory_product, list_watch_patterns, revoke_api_key). Minor deviations like signup, list_inventory, and search_recalls_by_identifier (instead of search_product_recalls_by_identifier) keep it from being perfectly consistent.

Tool Count4/5

With 19 tools, the server is slightly on the heavier side, but the count is justified by covering several distinct areas: account/key management, inventory, watch patterns, recall search, and notifications. Each tool appears to serve a real purpose, though a few search variants could arguably be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the core lifecycle well: signup, key management, inventory and watch pattern add/list/remove, multiple recall search paths, recall detail lookup, and notification read state. Minor gaps exist, such as no update operation for inventory items or watch patterns and no bulk notification actions, but agents can work around these.

Resources