Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-server-fatsecret

mcp-server-fatsecret

by borgels
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Get Saved Meals (FatSecret)

fatsecret_get_saved_meals
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get saved meal templates or view the foods within one by savedMealId.

Instructions

Your saved-meal templates, or the foods inside one with savedMealId.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "fatsecret_get_saved_meals"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
savedMealIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the conditional behavior of the optional parameter, but provides no additional context on response structure, errors, or pagination.

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 highly concise (9 words) and front-loaded with the key concept, but it is a sentence fragment without a clear subject-verb structure. It earns its place with no filler, though it could be better structured as a proper sentence.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter semantics. The ambiguity in the phrase 'with savedMealId' is a minor gap, but overall it is adequate for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains that savedMealId identifies a specific saved meal to return its foods, while omitting it returns all templates. This adds meaningful semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 communicates the resource and its two modes: retrieving saved-meal templates or the foods within a specific meal via savedMealId. It distinguishes from siblings like get_food/get_recipe, but lacks an explicit verb, relying on the title's 'Get' to signal the action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the conditional mention of savedMealId: without it, you get templates; with it, you get foods. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like prepare_saved_meal_operation or get_food.

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