openfoodfacts-mcp-server

check_allergens

Identify all 14 EU allergens and trace components in any food product using its barcode.

Instructions

Prueft alle Allergene und Spurenbestandteile eines Produkts. Gibt eine strukturierte Liste der 14 EU-Hauptallergene zurueck.

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": {
      "barcode": "<barcode>"
    },
    "name": "check_allergens"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`barcode`	Yes	EAN-Barcode des Produkts

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool checks allergens and trace components and returns a structured list, but does not mention permissions, rate limits, or side effects. Since the tool appears read-only, a basic level of transparency is achieved.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the action in the first sentence and the output format in the second. Every word is essential, with no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the existence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description provides sufficient context. It could be enhanced by mentioning the specific output structure, but the current version is complete enough for an agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the 'barcode' parameter described as 'EAN-Barcode des Produkts'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 'Prueft alle Allergene und Spurenbestandteile eines Produkts' and specifies the output as a list of the 14 EU main allergens. The verb 'Prueft' and resource 'allergens' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like 'get_nutrition_facts' or 'get_product_additives'.

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 checking allergens of a product via barcode but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_product_additives' or 'lookup_product_by_barcode'. No when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server