mcp-server-fatsecret

Get Recipe (FatSecret)

fatsecret_get_recipe

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve complete recipe details by ID, including ingredients, directions, and nutrition facts. Fetch specific recipe information from FatSecret's food and recipe database.

Instructions

Full ingredients/directions/nutrition for one recipe by id.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "recipeId": "<recipeId>"
    },
    "name": "fatsecret_get_recipe"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`recipeId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 17, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the content scope (ingredients/directions/nutrition) but doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like response structure, pagination, or auth requirements beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the main content (full ingredients/directions/nutrition) and scope (for one recipe by id). Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and rich annotations, the description covers the essential: what is returned and how to identify the recipe. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool, though it could mention where the recipe ID comes from.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The phrase 'by id' maps to recipeId, but since the schema already names the parameter 'recipeId' and defines it as a string with minLength 1, the description adds minimal extra value beyond restating the obvious. No format or source guidance is provided.

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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves full recipe details (ingredients, directions, nutrition) for a single recipe identified by id. It distinguishes from sibling search tools by emphasizing 'for one recipe by id', but does not explicitly name alternatives like fatsecret_search_recipes.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies use when you have a recipe ID and need complete details, but it does not mention needing prior search to obtain the ID or contrast with other recipe-related tools.

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

Deploy Server