Skip to main content
Glama

Uk Food Hygiene

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Uk Food Hygiene Details

uk_food_hygiene_details
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the full Food Standards Agency FHRS inspection record for one UK establishment by its FHRSID (from uk_food_hygiene_search) — rating, inspection date, sub-scores for hygiene / structural compliance / confidence in management (0 = best, higher = worse), full address, local authority contact, and geocode. Use to check how clean or safe a specific UK restaurant, takeaway, cafe, or pub is. Example: uk_food_hygiene_details({ fhrsid: 537122 })

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fhrsidYesFHRSID of the establishment, from uk_food_hygiene_search

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by explaining the sub-scores scale (0=best, higher=worse) and listing returned fields, but no additional behavioral traits beyond annotations.

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?

The description is a single sentence with an example, front-loading key information. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by detailing what is returned (rating, inspection date, sub-scores, address, local authority, geocode). This is sufficient for a retrieval tool with a single parameter and clear annotations.

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?

Only one parameter (fhrsid) with schema coverage 100%. Schema already provides a description; description adds an example and context (from search), which is helpful but not essential. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states it gets the full FHRS inspection record for one establishment by FHRSID, with specific details (rating, inspection date, sub-scores). It distinguishes from the sibling search tool by explicitly referencing uk_food_hygiene_search.

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?

Description indicates the tool is for retrieving details after a search (by FHRSID from uk_food_hygiene_search) and provides an example. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear enough for a single-purpose tool.

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

All Uk Food Hygiene 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

Several tools blur together: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer questions over the same data, and five polymarket_* tools overlap on edge detection and arbitrage. Descriptions help somewhat, but the boundaries are subtle and the server name 'Uk Food Hygiene' adds a layer of confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case, but conventions vary widely: brand-style names (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_feedback), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), verb_noun pairs (list_subscriptions, validate_claim), and bare verbs (recall, forget). It is readable but does not follow one predictable pattern.

Tool Count1/5

A server named 'Uk Food Hygiene' has 33 tools, of which only two (uk_food_hygiene_search, uk_food_hygiene_details) relate to food hygiene. The rest are a grab-bag of Pipeworx platform utilities, prediction-market tools, memory helpers, and subscription features — an extreme mismatch between count and stated scope.

Completeness2/5

The two food hygiene tools cover search and detail lookup, which handles the core use case, but the broader tool surface has notable gaps: citation URIs are returned but no fetch/read tool exists, and the unrelated domains (prediction markets, company research, AI visibility) are deep in some places and absent in others. The overall surface feels like an incoherent collection rather than a complete domain toolkit.

Resources