Skip to main content
Glama

Edamam

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Search Recipes

search_recipes
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Edamam's recipe database by keyword with optional diet, health, and cuisine filters. Returns recipes with calories, time, servings, and ingredient lists. Example: search_recipes({ query: "chicken curry", health: "gluten-free", limit: 5 })

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dietNoOptional diet filter, e.g. "balanced", "high-protein", "low-carb", "low-fat"
limitNoMaximum recipes to return (default 10)
queryYesRecipe search keywords, e.g. "chicken curry", "vegan brownies"
healthNoOptional health label filter, e.g. "gluten-free", "vegan", "vegetarian", "peanut-free"
_apiKeyNoOptional Edamam credentials (comma-separated nutrition,recipe,food pairs of app_id:app_key). Omit to use the platform key.
cuisineNoOptional cuisine type filter, e.g. "italian", "mexican", "indian", "japanese"

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already convey safety. The description adds value by specifying return fields (calories, time, servings, ingredient lists) and example usage, which is helpful for an agent despite no output schema.

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?

Two concise sentences plus an example. Front-loaded with action and resource. Every element serves a purpose; no redundancy.

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?

Given 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states the action, filters, and return values. It does not mention the optional _apiKey or default limit, but these are covered in the schema. Lacks pagination or rate limit warnings, but overall adequate.

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% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description mentions the optional filters (diet, health, cuisine) but does not add semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it searches Edamam's recipe database by keyword with optional filters, returning recipe details. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'search_food', the focus on recipes is specific enough to imply purpose.

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?

The description provides an example and lists filters, implying use for recipe searches. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'search_food' or when not to use it.

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

All Edamam 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set includes multiple overlapping tools (ask_pipeworx variants, many polymarket tools) that serve similar purposes, and there is a sharp domain split between food tools and Pipeworx data tools, making it hard for an agent to choose correctly.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent, mixing verb_noun (search_food), noun_verb (nutrition_analysis), prefixed (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage), and no pattern. Some use underscores, some use whole words.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is on the high side, and the scope is extremely broad (food, data queries, prediction markets, subscriptions), which could overwhelm an agent, but the number alone is not extreme.

Completeness2/5

As a food API server, it is missing key features like recipe details, ingredient substitution, or meal planning, while including many extraneous tools. The data analytics tools are extensive but not aligned with the server's stated purpose.

Resources