Nutrition By Api Ninjas MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior but fails entirely. It does not mention what data is returned (calories, macros, serving sizes), rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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?

While brief (six words), this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single sentence fails to earn its place by providing actionable information beyond the tool's identifier.

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?

Despite being a single-parameter tool, the description is inadequate. It lacks any indication of return values, output structure, or behavioral side effects, forcing reliance solely on the parameter schema for context.

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?

The description adds no parameter information, but the input schema has 100% description coverage (the 'query' parameter is fully documented with an example). Per guidelines, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even when the description is silent on parameters.

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 'API Ninjas Nutrition API endpoint' merely restates the tool name (v1nutrition) and identifies the domain, functioning as a tautology. It fails to specify what the tool actually does (e.g., extract nutrition facts, calculate calories) or what resource it operates on.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites for use (e.g., query format), or when it might be inappropriate. The description is purely nominal.

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