Search food databases by query to retrieve nutritional details. Use optional region, language, page, and limit parameters to refine results.
Search foods with the latest Platform endpoint available to the account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| region | No | ||
| language | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the 'latest Platform endpoint' nuance without explaining implications such as varying result formats or pagination. This added context is useful but minimal.
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?
A single concise sentence with no filler words. It clearly front-loads the verb and object while packing the endpoint nuance into the qualifier. Every word earns its place.
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?
With five parameters and zero schema descriptions, the tool description leaves major gaps: no guidance on pagination, region/language usage, endpoint version differences, or when this search is preferred over get_food. The output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but the input semantics and selection criteria remain under-specified.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain query, page, limit, region, or language semantics. Parameter names and constraints are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional meaning to compensate for the low coverage.
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?
Description states the specific action 'Search' and target resource 'foods', distinguishing it from sibling search_recipes and get_food. The qualifier 'with the latest Platform endpoint available to the account' adds context but is slightly vague about what that endpoint actually changes.
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 is given on when to use search_foods versus alternatives like search_recipes or get_food. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a sibling tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.