Perform full-text product searches on Open Food Facts using a text query, with optional language and pagination, to find matching products.
Full text product search via Search-a-licious.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| language | No | ||
| page_size | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| warnings | Yes | ||
| cache_hit | Yes | ||
| retrieved_at | Yes | ||
| missing_fields | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that — no pagination behavior, result caps (page_size max 20), rate limits, or what the search backend actually matches on.
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?
It is a single short, front-loaded clause with zero padding, which is structurally fine. But the brevity here is under-specification rather than discipline — the sentence is too thin for a 4-parameter search tool with siblings to disambiguate.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a tool with four undocumented parameters, an ambiguous sibling, and no stated scope or limits, the one-clause description leaves essential selection and invocation context missing.
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% across all four parameters (query, page, page_size, language), so the description carries the full burden and fails to explain any of them. "Full text" only loosely hints that query is free-text; page, page_size, and language get no mention at all.
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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Full text product search") and names the backing engine, so the basic operation is clear. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from the sibling tool search_products, which sounds like it does the same thing, leaving the agent to guess which one to call.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus search_products, get_product, or compare_products, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The presence of a near-identical sibling makes the absence of routing guidance a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.