Skip to main content
Glama

UK Postcode Intel

Food Hygiene Nearby

food_hygiene_nearby

Food hygiene ratings (FSA) of food businesses nearest a postcode, plus the rating distribution. Useful for restaurant, cafe and takeaway checks.

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": {
      "postcode": "<postcode>"
    },
    "name": "food_hygiene_nearby"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoNumber of establishments to list (default 15, max 50).
postcodeYesUK postcode.
radius_milesNoRadius in miles (default 0.5, max 5).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (FSA) and that results include both individual establishments and an aggregate distribution, which is useful. It says nothing about behavior on unknown postcodes, empty result sets, coverage limits, or freshness of the ratings data.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the core capability is front-loaded and the use-case hint trails it. Slightly terse for what it could convey in the same space, but nothing is wasted.

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 and the input schema is fully documented, so return shape and parameter syntax need no restating. For a simple spatial lookup the description is adequate, with only edge-case behavior (no nearby ratings, invalid postcode) 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 coverage is 100% and every parameter (postcode, limit, radius_miles) is documented with defaults and caps in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so the 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?

States a specific resource (FSA food hygiene ratings of businesses nearest a postcode) and a secondary output (rating distribution), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It is clearly distinct in domain from siblings like crime_summary or house_prices, though it does not explicitly name any sibling it is not.

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?

"Useful for restaurant, cafe and takeaway checks" implies the use case, which is more than nothing. But it offers no when-not guidance, no prerequisites (UK-only postcodes), and no routing to alternatives such as area_report for broader context.

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.

Resources