Food Core MCP

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: add, list, update, remove, mark status, check expiry, and set policies. There is no overlap; even 'mark' and 'remove' are clearly differentiated by description.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'cyberboss_food_<verb>' pattern in snake_case, such as cyberboss_food_add and cyberboss_food_set_reminder_policy. The naming is predictable and uniform.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for a food inventory domain. It covers CRUD, expiry checking, and configuration without unnecessary duplication or bloat.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers all essential operations: add, list, update, remove, mark, check expiry, and configure reminders/work cycles. Minor gap: no search by name, but list filtering covers most needs.
Average 3.5/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, nor any side effects, pagination, or authorization requirements.
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 very concise, with one sentence for purpose and a compact parameter summary. It could be better structured but contains no unnecessary text.
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?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of items) and any important constraints. It does not, leaving the agent blind to return format and operational behavior.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats parameter names but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's descriptions.
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 'List food items from the standalone Cyberboss food inventory,' using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like add or remove, but does not explicitly differentiate itself.
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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Does not disclose whether update is partial or full, what happens to omitted fields, idempotency, permissions, or side effects. Assumed to be a patch-like update but not explicitly stated.
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?
Concise with two sentences and a pseudo-schema, but the 'Input' block is redundant with the actual schema, wasting space. Could be shorter by omitting the Input block.
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?
Given 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. Lacks information on return value, error handling, or behavior when fields are omitted. Inadequate for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet description merely restates parameter names with types (identical to schema). No added semantic details like format constraints, allowed values, or relationships between parameters.
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?
Clearly states tool updates one food item by ID and lists specific adjustable fields (dates, quantity, notes, storage, category, status). Differentiates from sibling tools like 'add' and 'remove' by focusing on modification.
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?
Provides a usage hint ('Use this to adjust...') but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., 'use cyberboss_food_add for new items'). Sibling names provide some context, but description doesn't leverage them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as defaults, persistence, side effects, or whether previous settings are overwritten.
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 short and to the point, consisting of one sentence plus an inline object. While efficient, the inline type definition is somewhat redundant with the schema.
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?
Given 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what happens when parameters are omitted, how the policy is applied, or what the tool returns.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The inline parameter list in the description adds little beyond the schema; it echoes the same information without providing additional meaning or constraints.
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 tool sets a reminder timing policy for food expiry checks, with a specific verb ('set') and resource ('reminder timing policy'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'set_work_cycle'.
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?
The description implies usage for configuring reminder timings but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_work_cycle', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the input format and gives a example, but does not explain behavior like overwriting previous cycles, idempotency, permissions, or error responses.
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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The example is helpful. It could be slightly more structured, but there is no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema, the description does not explain return values or confirmation of success. For a simple setter, it provides basic context but misses completeness on outcomes.
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?
Schema coverage is 50% (type and anchorAwayStart have descriptions). The description adds significant context by showing how to use the parameters for a 48-hour pattern, clarifying that awayHours and homeHours represent durations and anchorAwayStart is a datetime, which compensates for missing schema details.
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 sets the user's repeating away/home work cycle for food reminder timing, giving a specific verb and resource. The example of a 48-hour shift pattern adds context. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like cyberboss_food_set_reminder_policy, but does not explicitly differentiate.
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?
The description implies usage for setting work cycles with a concrete example, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not mention alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It details that reminders respect work cycles, are surfaced before away windows, remain due until physically removed, and are reminded once per day. This exceeds typical disclosure.
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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. However, the inline parameter list at the end is somewhat redundant given the schema, but does not detract significantly.
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?
No output schema is provided, and the description fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of reminders, statuses, etc.). Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description should cover output structure.
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 100% and descriptions are provided. The tool description merely repeats the parameter list without adding new semantic meaning beyond the schema. No additional constraints or usage details are given for the parameters.
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?
Description clearly states 'Check which food reminders are due, expired, or upcoming,' using a specific verb and resource. It alludes to differentiation from siblings by mentioning reminder timing and work cycles, but does not explicitly contrast with 'list' or 'mark' tools.
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?
Provides some usage context, e.g., 'remind the user once per calendar day' and timing relative to work cycles. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like cyberboss_food_list, nor does it state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It explains that 'gone' statuses remove the item and 'present' statuses keep it active, listing examples. Could add details on side effects like reminder cancellation, but overall transparent.
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?
Description is relatively concise with clear action and conditional logic. The inline input format hint is slightly redundant given schema. Could be tightened further.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequately describes behavior and key parameter but lacks return value information and does not mention output schema. Given no output schema, expectation for completeness is higher.
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 low (33%). Description adds meaningful explanation for 'status' parameter (gone vs present dichotomy) but provides no extra for 'id' or 'notes'. Partially compensates for low coverage.
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?
Description clearly states it marks a food item and distinguishes two scenarios based on status (gone vs present). It differentiates from siblings like 'remove' and 'update' by explaining the conditional removal or keeping.
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?
Implied usage is present from the behavior description, but no explicit when-to-use or comparison with sibling tools like 'cyberboss_food_remove' or 'cyberboss_food_update' is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses estimation of use-by dates and clarification behavior. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, idempotency, or what happens on duplicate names. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.
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 a single paragraph that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key behaviors. It is not verbose and front-loads the primary action. Minor improvements could include bullet points for parameters.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavior: adding an item, handling dates, and storage ambiguity. It is sufficiently complete for an add operation, though it could mention what happens on duplicate names or validation errors.
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 89%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds context about estimation and clarification, which hints at behaviors related to bestBeforeDate and storage parameters. It does not add deep semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 'Add a food item to the standalone Cyberboss food inventory.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and it naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like list, update, or remove.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides usage guidance such as using explicit dates when provided, estimation for unpackaged foods, and clarification for ambiguous storage. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but it gives clear context for its operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes action as 'permanently remove', implying destructive behavior, but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or error handling. With no annotations, this is adequate but not thorough.
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?
Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with core action. Efficient and clear.
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?
Given no output schema and simple input, the description sufficiently covers the removal action. Lacks return value info but acceptable for a straightforward deletion.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 1 parameter (id) with 0% description coverage. Description only repeats 'id' as a string, adding no semantic value or context beyond the schema.
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?
Clearly states the tool removes one food item by id, and distinguishes from sibling tool cyberboss_food_mark which removes whole consumed/discarded foods.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions alternative tool (cyberboss_food_mark) that also removes items, providing implicit guidance on when to use each. Could explicitly state when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![food-core MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/caroliny1031/food-core/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/caroliny1031/food-core)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![food-core MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/caroliny1031/food-core/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/caroliny1031/food-core)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/caroliny1031/food-core'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server