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

mcp-server-fatsecret

by borgels
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Prepare: Delete Food Entry (FatSecret)

fatsecret_prepare_food_entry_delete
Destructive

Simulate the deletion of a food diary entry to verify the entry ID and reason, ensuring data accuracy before removing the record from FatSecret.

Instructions

Dry-run: prepare deleting a food diary entry.

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": {
      "foodEntryId": "<foodEntryId>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "fatsecret_prepare_food_entry_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonYes
foodEntryIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description states 'Dry-run', implying the operation is non-destructive, but the annotations declare destructiveHint=true. This is a direct contradiction, as a dry-run suggests no actual deletion occurs, while the annotation indicates destructive behavior.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very short and front-loaded, but it omits critical details. While it does not waste words, it is under-specified, which reduces its usefulness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool lacks an output schema, has undocumented parameters, and the prepare/commit pattern is not explained. The description is too sparse to provide adequate context for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema has 0% coverage and the description does not mention any parameters. It does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving foodEntryId and reason completely unexplained.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('prepare deleting') and the resource ('a food diary entry'), and the 'Dry-run' prefix indicates a non-destructive preview. It distinguishes itself from sibling prepare tools (create, edit, copy) by specifying the delete operation.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention the prepare/commit pattern or any other context, leaving the user to infer usage from the name alone.

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