io.github.AndrewVG23/grocery-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action: finding retailers, searching products, creating/retrieving handoffs, and managing templates. The purposes are clearly separated even where related, such as create_grocery_handoff vs create_handoff_from_template.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (find, search, create, get, list). The naming is predictable and easy to infer, with no mixed conventions.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools is well-scoped for a grocery-specific MCP server. Each tool covers a necessary step in the workflow without redundancy or bloat.
Completeness4/5
Core workflows are covered: retailer discovery, product search, handoff creation/retrieval, and template creation/listing/use. Minor gaps exist such as no template deletion or update, but these are non-critical for the primary use case.
Average 3.8/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 5 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It adds no behavioral context beyond what the name suggests—it does not state idempotency, error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found), or that it is a safe read-only operation. The phrase 'previously generated' implies persistence but provides no safety or side-effect information.
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 concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is simple and an output schema exists, the description omits usage context relative to sibling tools (e.g., relationship to 'create_handoff_from_template'). It does not mention edge cases or when to use this instead of listing templates. The description is minimally complete for a basic get, but lacks enough context for an agent to make fully informed decisions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no description for 'handoff_id', and the description does not compensate. It only implies that the ID refers to a previously generated handoff but does not explain its format, source (e.g., from a create response), or any constraints. With 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more parameter context.
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 'retrieve' and a specific resource 'product-link handoff', clearly distinguishing this get operation from sibling tools that create or list handoffs/templates. The purpose is immediately clear.
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?
Usage is implied: you use this tool when you want to fetch a previously generated handoff. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over listing templates or creating from template, nor any alternative names mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the basic function and omits details like whether existing templates are overwritten, authentication requirements, or side effects. With such minimal disclosure, the agent gets little insight into behavior beyond the high-level action.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it appropriately concise for its content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters and no annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain how this template creation differs from creating a handoff, nor does it offer essential context about the output or prerequisites. The output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation, but broader usage context is still missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description provides almost no parameter-level meaning. It mentions 'grocery list' which hints at the 'items' parameter, but does not explain the expected format, the role of 'retailer', or optional fields like 'location_id' and 'postal_code'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 saves a reusable grocery list, using a specific verb ('save') and resource ('grocery list'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting 'without searching or placing an order', which sets it apart from search and order-related tools.
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 provides clear context: it is for saving reusable lists and explicitly states what it does not do (searching or placing an order). This gives a when-not instruction, though it does not name alternative tools such as search_grocery_products or create_grocery_handoff.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It mentions 'fresh storefront searches', implying network calls and possibly current-price retrieval, but does not disclose that the tool creates a new handoff (as the name suggests), nor any error behavior, permissions, or impact on the template. This is a significant gap.
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 concise sentence that immediately states the tool's core behavior. There is no redundant information, fluff, or repetition of the schema, making it highly efficient in capturing the essential purpose.
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?
The tool has one parameter and a simple concept, but no annotations and an output schema that is not detailed. The description explains the search aspect but omits the 'create handoff' side effect implied by the name, and does not mention return behavior or failure modes. This is adequate but leaves room for clarity on the overall workflow.
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?
The schema provides only a bare 'template_id' string with no description. The description adds that the template is 'reusable' and that 'all items' in it are used, clarifying the meaning of the parameter. However, it does not specify the ID format or how it relates to list_grocery_order_templates, leaving some interpretive burden on the agent.
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 action ('Run fresh storefront searches') on a specific resource ('all items in a reusable template'). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_grocery_handoff, which likely creates a handoff without a template, and template management tools.
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 in the context of reusable templates but does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives like create_grocery_handoff. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions are provided, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must disclose side effects and limitations. It states the output (product links for manual checkout) but does not explicitly say the tool creates a handoff record, whether it is a write operation, or any related side effects. The name 'create' implies writing, but the description's verb 'match' underplays this. Limited disclosure of behavior beyond the basic function.
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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by an Args list. Every line provides essential information with no fluff. The front-loaded purpose makes the tool's intent immediately clear.
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 moderate complexity (4 params, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers all parameters, mentions a dependent tool, and notes the manual checkout context. However, it lacks explicit usage guidelines and behavioral details, leaving some gaps. The existence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter: retailer values, items structure with optional fields, location_id source from find_grocery_retailers, and postal_code purpose. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema and aids correct invocation.
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's function: 'Match a grocery list to direct retailer product links for manual checkout.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like get_grocery_handoff (which retrieves) and create_handoff_from_template (which uses a template). The use of 'match' and 'manual checkout' clarifies it creates product links rather than completing a purchase.
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 provides context on when to use the tool by mentioning 'manual checkout' and specifying retailer options ('kettle_range or outpost'). It also references find_grocery_retailers for location_id, implying a prerequisite step. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives like creating from a template or searching products, so guidance is implied but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is a simple declarative statement; it clearly implies a read-only listing operation, but without annotations it does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as sorting, pagination, or whether the list includes archived templates. For such a simple tool, the verb 'List' is adequate, but there is no extra context.
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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently states the action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no nested objects, output schema present), the description fully covers what the agent needs to know to invoke it. It clearly identifies what is being listed and distinguishes it from related tools.
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 input schema has no parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description adds domain context ('reusable') but there is nothing to explain; baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
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 the specific verb 'List' plus a clear resource ('reusable grocery order templates') and scope ('saved on this service'). This distinguishes it from sibling creation/search/handoff tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and sibling list imply it is the standard way to list templates, the description does not explicitly state a preferred use case or contrast with tools like create_grocery_order_template or search_grocery_products.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It accurately states the read-only listing behavior, but omits any details about authentication, data freshness, or potential limitations. Since it's a simple zero-parameter list tool, the minimal description is 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no redundant or verbose language.
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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does. It lacks a brief note about when to use it before other grocery actions, but that falls under usage guidelines. Overall, the tool's scope is simple and fully described.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so parameter documentation is not needed. The description adds no parameter info, but the baseline for 0 params is 4.
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?
Description uses explicit verb 'List' and specifies the resource: 'supported grocery retailers and pickup storefront locations.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_grocery_products or create_grocery_handoff.
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 the tool is for discovering available retailers and locations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as search_grocery_products. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a read-only search over a public catalog and says the output is ranked direct product links, though it doesn't detail error handling or rate limits.
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 compact: one lead sentence followed by a clear Args block. Each parameter gets a brief, useful explanation with no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present and all parameters documented, the description covers everything needed to invoke the tool. It also references find_grocery_retailers for location_id, completing the workflow context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description manually documents all five parameters with concrete values and examples. It fully compensates by explaining retailer options, query examples, limit bounds, and brand optionality.
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 one retailer's public catalog and returns ranked product links. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_grocery_retailers and the handoff/template creation tools.
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?
It specifies single-retailer product search and notes that location_id comes from find_grocery_retailers, providing useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or alternative options for multi-retailer searches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![grocery_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AndrewVG23/grocery_mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AndrewVG23/grocery_mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![grocery_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AndrewVG23/grocery_mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AndrewVG23/grocery_mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AndrewVG23/grocery_mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server