world-reference-mcp

Fdc Food Search

fdc_food_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search USDA FoodData Central to find foods and their nutrient amounts. Enter a query to retrieve paginated results with per-food nutrient values for dietary and nutrition analysis.

Instructions

Search USDA FoodData Central; each result carries its nutrient amounts.

The API key is resolved from the credential reference this package declares (WORLD_REFERENCE_FDC_API_KEY, env:// by default) — never accepted as a tool argument.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes
`page_size`	No
`page_number`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.4Oct 24, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely non-obvious auth context: the API key comes from a declared credential reference (env://) and is never a tool argument, which prevents a wasted argument attempt. It says nothing about rate limits, query syntax, or pagination behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the credential caveat. The docstring-style line breaks are slightly awkward but do not hurt length or ordering.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the auth note covers a hidden dependency. Still missing for a search tool: what `query` accepts, how pagination works, and whether results are ranked — all undocumented at 0% schema coverage.

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 description coverage is 0% for all three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It never explains what `query` matches against, or how `page_size`/`page_number` behave beyond raw defaults.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (search USDA FoodData Central) plus a hint of the result content (nutrient amounts). It is clearly distinct from the taxonomy/GBIF/iNaturalist/weather siblings by resource, though it never explicitly says so.

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 on when to use this over the other search tools, no prerequisites, no exclusions. The only implied usage is 'search food data', which the name already conveys.

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

Deploy Server