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.
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.8/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: search_food for finding foods by name, get_nutrition for detailed nutrition by ID, and compare_foods for side-by-side comparison. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (search_food, get_nutrition, compare_foods) with lowercase snake_case, making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 3 tools, the set is slightly small but well-scoped for a focused nutrition lookup and comparison domain. It covers the essential operations without being excessive.
The tools cover the core workflow: search, get details, and compare. Missing features like listing by nutrient or filtering by category are minor gaps, but the set is functional for its stated purpose.
Available Tools
3 toolscompare_foodsAInspect
Compare nutrition profiles of multiple foods side-by-side. Identifies winners by protein and calorie density.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | No | Comma-separated USDA FDC IDs (e.g. "173950,2187885,1103516") | 173950,2187885,1103516 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses comparison and winner identification by protein and calorie density, but lacks details on output format, data limits, or how winners are determined.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence contributes, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers the main function and key behavior (winner identification), though the lack of output details is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the parameter 'ids' as comma-separated USDA FDC IDs with an example. The description adds no further meaning beyond restating the purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'compare' and the resource 'nutrition profiles of multiple foods'. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'get_nutrition' (likely single food) and 'search_food' (search behavior), making the tool's specific purpose evident.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for side-by-side comparison of multiple foods, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools provides implicit guidance.
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.
| 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
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description could have provided more behavioral context (e.g., data freshness, rate limits, completeness of profile). It merely states what is returned, which is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the essential purpose. It uses no unnecessary words and is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return contents. It is complete enough for the agent to understand what the tool provides.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds semantic value by clarifying that the output includes 'macros, vitamins, and minerals,' which helps the agent understand the tool's purpose beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Get'), resource ('full nutrition profile'), and the specific identifier ('USDA FDC ID'). It distinguishes itself from siblings (compare_foods and search_food) by focusing on a single food's detailed profile.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 and want nutrition details, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs search_food or compare_foods, and does not mention 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.
search_foodBInspect
Search USDA FoodData Central for foods by name. Returns nutrition macros for matching foods.
| 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
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral info. It states returns nutrition macros but omits details like response structure, potential errors, or rate limits. Adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no extraneous information. Efficiently communicates the core purpose. Could be slightly more structured but sufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema; description vaguely mentions nutrition macros without detailing structure. For a simple search tool, it covers essentials but lacks completeness for agent to anticipate return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond restating the search purpose; baseline of 3 is appropriate as it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches a specific database (USDA FoodData Central) by name and returns nutrition macros. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings 'compare_foods' and 'get_nutrition' by focusing on search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compare_foods' or 'get_nutrition'. The description only states the action without context for selection.
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!