search_supplementsSupplements with evidence ratings, dosage and timing. Filter by category, goal, timing, evidence or free text. Needs the Growth plan or higher.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | No | ||
| limit | No | Max results (default 200, plan caps apply) | |
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| timing | No | e.g. pre-workout, post-workout, morning | |
| category | No | e.g. protein, creatine, pre-workout | |
| evidence | No | e.g. strong, moderate |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds important non-schema context: access requires the Growth plan or higher. It does not discuss pagination behavior beyond what the schema provides, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
The description is short and front-loads the resource and its key attributes, followed by filters and the plan requirement. Every sentence contributes useful information. The first sentence is a fragment rather than an explicit action statement, which slightly weakens structure.
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 seven optional parameters, partial schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job of stating what is returned and what can be filtered. The plan requirement is important context. It could be more complete by explaining pagination or contrasting with the supplement stack sibling, but it is sufficient to invoke the tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 57%, and the description lists most filter dimensions: category, goal, timing, evidence, and free text. It does not mention limit or offset, and it adds little detail beyond the schema for the documented parameters. This is adequate but leaves the pagination parameters to the schema alone.
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 identifies the resource as supplements and notes the returned attributes: evidence ratings, dosage, and timing. It also lists the supported filters, so the agent can distinguish this as a filtered supplement search rather than a stack lookup. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_supplement_stack, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
The description gives practical usage context by listing the filter dimensions and the plan prerequisite, implying it is used to search/filter supplements. However, it does not say when to use this instead of get_supplement_stack or other siblings, and there are no explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.