Spoonacular

Ingredient Search

ingredient_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Ingredient search.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sort`	No
`query`	Yes
`number`	No
`intolerances`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedMay 22, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "query": "tomato"
+  },
+  {
+    "number": 10,
+    "query": "flour",
+    "sort": "calories"
+  }
+]

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "Ingredient search results",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMay 20, 2026

TDQS

D1.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description is not required to repeat that. However, it adds no additional behavioral context—no mention of search scope, result format, pagination, or any constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is just three words, but this is under-specification rather than concise effectiveness. It lacks necessary detail and does not front-load any useful information beyond the tool's name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given there are 4 parameters with no schema descriptions and an output schema exists, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how to construct a valid search, or what the output schema represents. The minimal text leaves the agent entirely reliant on guessing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It does not explain what 'query', 'sort', 'number', or 'intolerances' mean or how they interact. The examples provide minimal hints but the description itself adds zero parameter-level semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Ingredient search.' merely restates the tool name and title without any specific verb or resource context. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like ingredient_information or product_search, leaving the purpose ambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or how it differs from alternatives. The sibling list includes similar search tools (e.g., product_search, recipe_search), but the description gives no contextual clues or exclusions.

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

All Spoonacular tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.