Skip to main content
Glama

recipes

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Search Meals

search_meals
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search TheMealDB for recipes by meal name. Returns full recipe details — category, cuisine area, ingredients with measurements, step-by-step instructions, tags, thumbnail, and YouTube/source URLs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesMeal name or partial name to search for

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mealsYesList of meals matching the search query
totalYesNumber of meals matching the search query

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "meals": {
+      "description": "List of meals matching the search query",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "area": {
+            "description": "Cuisine area/region (e.g., Italian, Indian)",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "category": {
+            "description": "Meal category (e.g., dessert, seafood)",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "description": "TheMealDB meal ID",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "ingredients": {
+            "description": "List of ingredients with measurements",
+            "items": {
+              "properties": {
+                "ingredient": {
+                  "description": "Ingredient name",
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                "measure": {
+                  "description": "Measurement quantity and unit",
+                  "type": "string"
+                }
+              },
+              "required": [
+                "ingredient",
+                "measure"
+              ],
+              "type": "object"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "instructions": {
+            "description": "Cooking instructions",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "description": "Meal name",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "source_url": {
+            "description": "Source website URL",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "tags": {
+            "description": "List of meal tags/keywords",
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "thumbnail_url": {
+            "description": "URL to meal thumbnail image",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "youtube_url": {
+            "description": "YouTube video URL for recipe",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "id",
+          "name",
+          "category",
+          "area",
+          "instructions",
+          "thumbnail_url",
+          "youtube_url",
+          "source_url",
+          "tags",
+          "ingredients"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "total": {
+      "description": "Number of meals matching the search query",
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "total",
+    "meals"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "query": "pasta"
+  },
+  {
+    "query": "chicken tikka"
+  }
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds detail on return content (category, ingredients, instructions, URLs) beyond annotations, which already declare non-destructive read-only behavior. No contradiction.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; enumerates useful return fields efficiently.

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?

Adequate for a simple search tool: annotations cover safety, output schema exists, and description covers return content; minor omission of list-vs-single result behavior is not significant given output schema.

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 fully documents the 'query' parameter with type and description; tool description's 'by meal name' adds no additional semantics beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states it searches TheMealDB by meal name and enumerates returned fields, distinguishing it from siblings like get_meal (specific ID) and meals_by_ingredient (by ingredient).

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?

Provides clear use case (search by name) but does not explicitly mention when to prefer alternatives like get_meal or meals_by_ingredient, nor any exclusions.

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

All recipes 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a highly specific purpose with detailed descriptions, making them easily distinguishable. Overlaps are minimal; for instance, Pipeworx and Polymarket tools have distinct roles within their domains.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), but a few single-word names (e.g., forget, recall) deviate slightly, causing minor inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

The server is named 'recipes' but contains only 4 recipe-related tools out of 34. The majority cover unrelated domains like finance, betting, and data queries, making the scope overly broad and misaligned with the server name.

Completeness2/5

For the 'recipes' domain, essential CRUD operations and features like meal planning are missing. While the general tool set is extensive, it lacks critical recipe-related functionality, leaving significant gaps for the intended purpose.

Resources