a207-meal-plan-mcp
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
| logging | {} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| resources | {
"subscribe": false,
"listChanged": false
} |
| extensions | {
"io.modelcontextprotocol/ui": {}
} |
| experimental | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| generate_meal_planA | 按 PRNT 目标生成多日食谱（3 餐 + 加餐），返回餐次明细、每日汇总与达成率。营养师调用。 |
| get_meal_plan_nutrientsA | 从已生成 plan 重新汇总整体平均每日营养素（校验用）。 |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one generates a new meal plan, the other aggregates nutrient data from an existing plan. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'generate_meal_plan' and 'get_meal_plan_nutrients'. The naming style is uniform and predictable.
With only 2 tools, the server feels minimal. While the narrow scope is defensible, it sits at the borderline where 1-2 tools are typically considered thin for a functional domain.
The tool surface covers generation and nutrient validation, but lacks update/delete/list operations for meal plans. There are notable gaps in lifecycle management, though the core generation workflow is present.