Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

chipotle_ingredients

Get Chipotle's ingredient content catalog: sourcing stories, imagery, and recipe composition. Map each ingredient to menu items and each recipe group to its ingredient keys.

Instructions

Get Chipotle's ingredient content catalog. Returns Chipotle's raw-ingredient content pages -- sourcing story, marketing copy, imagery -- and the per-item recipe breakdown. ingredients[] has one entry per raw ingredient (Avocado, Yellow Onion, ...), each with its facts/sourcing copy and the menu_item_ids it appears in. ingredient_groups[] is the reverse view: one entry per recipe category (proteins, rice and beans, ...) listing each item's exact ingredient_keys, joinable against ingredients[].key for the human-readable name. Nothing else in this family exposes either ingredient content or recipe-level composition.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
regionNoCountry catalog. One of US, CA. Default US.
channelNoOrdering surface. One of web, web-mobile. Default web-mobile.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.17.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / channel / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "web",
+  "web-mobile"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / region / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "US",
+  "CA"
+]
  2. Addedv1.16.2

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool returns (raw-ingredient pages and recipe breakdown) and details the structure of the response (ingredients[] and ingredient_groups[]). It doesn't mention side effects or permissions, but for a read-only catalog fetch, this is sufficient. The description is transparent about the data shape and joinability.

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 about four sentences and packs in all necessary information: purpose, content types, response structure, and uniqueness among siblings. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently explains the data model without verbosity.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by thoroughly explaining the response structure (ingredients[] and ingredient_groups[]), including their fields and how to join them. It also notes the absence of similar functionality elsewhere, which helps the agent understand the tool's scope. This is complete for the tool's purpose.

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?

Both parameters (region and channel) have full descriptions in the input schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description itself adds no additional meaning about how these parameters affect the results. It doesn't mention them at all, so it does not go beyond the schema. Baseline 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 the tool's purpose: to retrieve Chipotle's ingredient content catalog. It specifies the exact content (sourcing story, marketing copy, imagery) and the per-item recipe breakdown, and distinguishes it from siblings by noting that 'Nothing else in this family exposes either ingredient content or recipe-level composition.'

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 provides a clear context for when to use this tool by stating that no other tool in the family exposes ingredient content or recipe composition, implying this is the go-to for such needs. However, it doesn't explicitly list alternative tools or give explicit 'when not to use' conditions, but the differentiation is strong.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools