A
licenseA
qualityD
maintenanceEnables natural language access to USDA's FoodData Central database with 1M+ foods, supporting search, nutrition facts, food comparison, and daily value calculations.
8
MIT
Food & Nutrition
Server Details
Food and nutrition data: search, macros, and comparisons
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 3.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: searching for foods, retrieving full nutrition by ID, and comparing multiple foods. There is no overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores: search_food, get_nutrition, compare_foods.
Tool Count4/5
Three tools is a minimal but reasonable set for a focused nutrition server covering search, detail, and comparison. The scope is narrow, so the count is appropriate.
Completeness4/5
Core operations are covered (search, retrieve, compare), but the compare tool is limited to protein and calorie density, missing other nutrient comparisons. Minor gap.
Available Tools
3 toolscompare_foodsAInspect
Compare nutrition profiles of multiple foods side-by-side. Identifies winners by protein and calorie density.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | No | Comma-separated USDA FDC IDs (e.g. "173950,2187885,1103516") | 173950,2187885,1103516 |
Tool Definition Quality
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's function (compare and identify winners) clearly, but could mention that it is a read-only operation without side effects.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and key outcome. No unnecessary 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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could mention the return format or that it provides comparisons, but it is 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% and the schema already explains the 'ids' parameter with an example. The description adds context about identifying winners but does not add meaning beyond the 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?
The description clearly states it compares nutrition profiles of multiple foods side-by-side and identifies winners by protein and calorie density. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_nutrition' (single food) and 'search_food'.
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 implies usage for comparing multiple foods but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use or what to use instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_nutritionAInspect
Get full nutrition profile for a specific food by USDA FDC ID. Returns macros, vitamins, and minerals.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fdc_id | No | USDA FoodData Central ID (e.g. 173950 = avocado raw) | 173950 |
| format | No | abridged or full | abridged |
Tool Definition Quality
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool returns data without side effects, and the source ('USDA') is mentioned. Could explicitly note it is read-only, but the verb 'Get' implies safe retrieval.
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 sentence with 15 words, efficiently conveying purpose, input key, and output summary. No unnecessary 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?
No output schema exists, but the description lists the return categories (macros, vitamins, minerals), which is helpful. Could detail the response structure more, but sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.
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?
Both parameters have descriptions in the schema with coverage 100%. The tool description adds context for fdc_id by mentioning USDA FDC ID, but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score 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 specifies the action ('Get full nutrition profile'), resource ('specific food by USDA FDC ID'), and output ('macros, vitamins, and minerals'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a single food profile retrieval.
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 implies usage when you have a specific FDC ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_foods or search_food. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_foodAInspect
Search USDA FoodData Central for foods by name. Returns nutrition macros for matching foods.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Food name to search (e.g. "chicken breast", "avocado") | chicken breast |
| brand | No | Filter by brand owner | |
| limit | No | Number of results (max 25) | |
| dataType | No | Filter by data type: Foundation, SR Legacy, Survey (FNDDS), Branded |
Tool Definition Quality
A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It states returns nutrition macros but doesn't detail format, limits, or side effects. Adequate but minimal for a search tool.
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 sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose. Perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Returns nutrition macros but no output schema, so return format is unclear. Parameter schemas fully described. Adequate for a simple search tool but could specify pagination or data type details.
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?
Input schema has 100% parameter descriptions. The description adds 'nutrition macros' context but not specific parameter semantics beyond schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 the tool searches USDA FoodData Central by name and returns nutrition macros. It distinguishes from siblings: compare_foods likely compares multiple foods, get_nutrition gets details for a specific food.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool vs siblings. The purpose is implied but no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Servers
- Flicense-qualityDmaintenanceProvides intelligent access to the USDA nutrition database through AI assistants, enabling users to search foods, compare nutritional content, find foods high in specific nutrients, and query authoritative nutrition data across 7,146+ food items through natural language.1
- Flicense-qualityCmaintenanceProvides access to Taiwan packaged food and chain restaurant nutritional information, including search, nutrition calculation, and draft creation for new data.
- FlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceCalculate TDEE & macro targets, look up food nutrition data, generate meal plans, fix nutrient deficiencies, and score a day's eating from 0–100. Free nutrition tools for AI assistants.5