MyFitnessPal MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

mfp_search_food

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search the MyFitnessPal food database by query to get a list of matching foods with calories, serving size, and brand information.

Instructions

Search the MyFitnessPal food database for food items.

Returns a list of matching foods with their name, brand, serving size,
calories, and MFP ID (which can be used with mfp_get_food_details).

Args:
    params: SearchFoodInput containing:
        - query (str): Search query (e.g., 'chicken breast')
        - limit (int): Maximum results to return (default 10)
        - response_format (str): 'markdown' or 'json'

Returns:
    str: List of matching food items with basic nutrition info

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "mfp_search_food"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what the search returns (name, brand, serving size, calories, MFP ID) and how the limit defaults to 10, which goes beyond the annotation metadata.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-organized with an opening purpose sentence followed by compact Args and Returns sections. It is not bloated, though some of the parameter details duplicate what the input schema already states. Overall it is efficient and scannable.

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 read-only search tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is returned, names the linked detail tool, and documents all parameters. It could be slightly stronger with explicit notes on empty results or limit cap, but nothing critical is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The context signal reports 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the parameter-documentation burden. It does so by listing query, limit, and response_format with types, defaults, and a concrete example ('chicken breast'). It also adds semantic value by explaining the returned MFP ID's downstream use.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and names the exact resource ('MyFitnessPal food database'). It also lists the output fields and explicitly distinguishes itself from the detail-retrieval tool mfp_get_food_details by stating the returned MFP ID is for that tool.

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?

The description gives clear context: use this tool to search for food items and then use mfp_get_food_details for details. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like mfp_list_own_foods, but the intended flow is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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