Compass DaaS
OfficialCompass DaaS MCP
MCP server for Compass DaaS. It exposes three restaurant dietary decision tools over the Model Context Protocol and calls the Compass REST API with your API key.
Quick Start
npx -y @compass-food/mcpSet COMPASS_API_KEY before starting the server:
export COMPASS_API_KEY=cmp_test_your_sandbox_keyFor staging or local testing, set:
export COMPASS_BASE_URL=https://daas-api-veganmapai-1a8b7.a.run.appRelated MCP server: Maître d'MCP
Install
Claude Desktop
Edit ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"compass": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@compass-food/mcp"],
"env": {
"COMPASS_API_KEY": "cmp_test_your_sandbox_key"
}
}
}
}Cursor
Add to Cursor MCP settings (~/.cursor/mcp.json globally, or .cursor/mcp.json in a workspace):
{
"mcpServers": {
"compass": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@compass-food/mcp"],
"env": {
"COMPASS_API_KEY": "cmp_test_your_sandbox_key"
}
}
}
}Codex CLI
Edit ~/.codex/config.toml:
[mcp_servers.compass]
command = "npx"
args = ["-y", "@compass-food/mcp"]
[mcp_servers.compass.env]
COMPASS_API_KEY = "cmp_test_your_sandbox_key"Get an API key
Sign up free — 1,000 Compass credits/month, no credit card required.
Tools
compass_search
Wraps POST /v1/search.
The mode tool argument is sent to the REST API as the X-Compass-Mode header.
{
"query": "strict vegan ramen in Brooklyn under $20",
"user_profile": {
"diet": "strict_vegan",
"allergens": ["peanut"],
"exclude_cross_contamination": true
},
"location": {
"lat": 40.6782,
"lng": -73.9442,
"radius_m": 5000
},
"limit": 10,
"mode": "rich"
}compass_enrich_restaurant
Wraps POST /v1/enrich/restaurant.
Use compass_id for direct lookup, or name plus address or google_place_id for fuzzy match.
{
"name": "Buddha Bodai",
"address": "5 Mott St, New York, NY"
}compass_decide_fit
Wraps POST /v1/decision/restaurant-fit.
The mode tool argument is sent to the REST API as the X-Compass-Mode header.
{
"compass_id": "rest_xyz789",
"user_profile": {
"diet": "strict_vegan",
"exclude_cross_contamination": true
},
"mode": "rich"
}API Key Resolution
The server checks:
COMPASS_API_KEY~/.compass/config.json
Config file:
{
"api_key": "cmp_live_abc123",
"base_url": "https://api.compassfoodtechnologies.com"
}Privacy
This package sends tool calls only to the configured Compass API base URL. It does not send secondary usage data.
Links
Support: support@compassfoodtechnologies.com
License
MIT
Available Tools
3 toolscompass_decide_fitDecide restaurant fitARead-onlyIdempotent
Conservative fit decision for a restaurant against a user dietary profile. Returns "fit", "not_fit", or "unknown" with reason codes, evidence, and user wording. Returns "unknown" rather than overclaiming.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| compass_id | Yes | Compass restaurant ID, obtained from compass_search or compass_enrich_restaurant | |
| user_profile | Yes | Required dietary profile for the restaurant fit decision | |
| mode | No | Response detail mode; rich includes fuller evidence and reasoning | rich |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| compass_id | Yes | Stable Compass restaurant ID |
| decision | Yes | Conservative decision for the submitted profile |
| confidence | Yes | Decision confidence |
| reason_codes | Yes | Compass public reason codes explaining the decision |
| evidence | Yes | Evidence supporting the decision |
| source_freshness | No | Age and refresh guidance for the evidence behind a result |
| risk_flags | No | Risk flags that should be surfaced to the user |
| recommended_user_text | No | Conservative user-facing wording |
| verification_required | No | True when the user should verify with the restaurant before relying on the result |
| last_evaluated_at | No | When Compass last evaluated this restaurant for decision freshness |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, which the description does not contradict. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is 'conservative' and returns 'unknown' rather than overclaiming, which goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the decision philosophy.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loads the key action and outputs, and contains no wasted words. Every sentence contributes essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters with a nested object, annotations, output schema), the description adequately covers the core behavior. It explains the conservative nature and the three possible outcomes. Missing details like what 'reason codes' and 'evidence' entail are likely covered by the output schema, so the description is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds high-level behavioral context (conservatism, 'unknown' return) but no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'decide' and resource 'restaurant fit', and clearly states it returns 'fit', 'not_fit', or 'unknown' with additional artifacts. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools (compass_search finds restaurants, compass_enrich_restaurant enriches data) by focusing on the fit decision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a conservative decision approach and warns against overclaiming, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings or any prerequisites. It lacks explicit context on when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
compass_enrich_restaurantEnrich restaurantARead-onlyIdempotent
Match a restaurant by name and address, then return Compass enrichment data including VeganScore, vegan dietary profile, and evidence. Does not return certification/free-from facts. Returns "matched: false" with candidates if confidence is below threshold.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| compass_id | No | Compass restaurant ID for direct lookup | |
| name | No | Restaurant name | |
| address | No | Street address (improves match) | |
| google_place_id | No | Google Place ID (highest match confidence) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| matched | Yes | Whether Compass confidently matched the submitted restaurant |
| compass_id | No | Stable Compass restaurant ID for the matched restaurant, when matched |
| restaurant | No | Compass restaurant result |
| candidates | No | Candidate matches returned when confidence is below threshold |
| confidence | No | Match confidence when available |
| vegan_score | No | Deterministic Compass VeganScore summary |
| dietary_profile | No | Public restaurant dietary facts supported by launch evidence. Compass does not expose allergen-safe or certification claims. |
| evidence | No | Evidence for the enrichment result |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and open world. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool does not return certification/free-from facts, and explains the matching confidence threshold behavior. This provides useful behavioral context beyond what annotations offer.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, each adding essential information: purpose and returned data, exclusions, and low-confidence behavior. It is front-loaded and concise without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, input options, constraints, and edge-case behavior. It is complete for a read-only enrichment tool with no need for additional state or authentication details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds semantic value by explaining that google_place_id provides the highest match confidence, and that compass_id is for direct lookup. This enhances the agent's understanding of parameter use.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specific verb 'Match' and resource 'restaurant enrichment data' clearly defines the tool's function. It lists returned data types (VeganScore, vegan dietary profile, evidence) and explicitly states what is not returned (certification/free-from facts), providing a precise purpose that distinguishes it from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the input parameters (name and address as primary matching; compass_id or google_place_id as alternatives) and describes the behavior when confidence is low (returns 'matched: false' with candidates). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, the context for enrichment vs. search/decide is implied by the sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
compass_searchSearch restaurantsARead-onlyIdempotent
Search restaurants by natural-language dietary query. Returns ranked results with VeganScore, evidence, and confidence. Conservative: returns "unknown" when evidence is insufficient and does not return certification/free-from facts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Natural language query, e.g. 'strict vegan ramen in Brooklyn under $20' | |
| user_profile | No | Optional dietary profile for per-result fit guidance | |
| location | No | Optional coordinate radius filter for location-aware search | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of restaurants to return | |
| include_evidence | No | Whether to include evidence snippets when available | |
| mode | No | Response detail mode; rich includes fuller evidence and reasoning | rich |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| compass_request_id | No | Compass request identifier for support and tracing |
| results | Yes | Ranked Compass restaurant results |
| query_interpretation | No | Best-effort interpretation of the submitted search query |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond readOnlyHint and idempotentHint from annotations, the description adds key behavioral details: conservative handling by returning 'unknown' when evidence is insufficient and not returning certification/free-from facts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with action and result, no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a fully described schema and output schema (assumed), the description covers key behavior and results. Minor gap: how to use results with siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 only adds context to the query parameter via 'natural-language dietary query'; no additional meaning for other parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it searches restaurants by natural-language dietary query, returning ranked results with VeganScore, evidence, and confidence. It distinguishes from siblings (decide_fit, enrich) through its search focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. It implies use for dietary queries but lacks when-not or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
3 tool updates
v0.1.0- First observed
compass_decide_fit - First observed
compass_enrich_restaurant - First observed
compass_search
TDQS
Each tool has a distinct purpose: decide_fit makes a dietary fit determination, enrich_restaurant returns enrichment data for a specific restaurant, and search allows natural-language queries. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'compass_verb_noun' (decide_fit, enrich_restaurant, search). The naming is predictable and uniform.
With only 3 tools, the set is appropriately scoped for the narrow domain of restaurant dietary matching. Each tool is essential and there is no bloat.
The tools cover search, enrichment, and fit decision, which are the core operations for the domain. No obvious gaps exist given the stated purpose of providing dietary data service.
Maintenance
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
AI-native restaurant discovery: verified/menu-indexed/discovered tiers + signed allergy-safety data.
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
OSM-sourced local business data across 9 niches — cuisine, dietary options, delivery, accessibility.
Model Context Protocol server for Studex tools, notifications, and profile integrations
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceMCP Compass is a discovery and recommendation service that assists AI assistants in finding and understanding Model Context Protocol servers through natural language queries.1142245MIT
- FlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server for restaurant discovery and booking across Resy and OpenTable via natural language. It integrates Google Places data with dietary preferences, visit history, and weather awareness to provide personalized dining recommendations and group reservation management.23-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityNot gradedmaintenanceAn AI-native restaurant discovery service that enables searching and receiving natural language recommendations for over 2,200 restaurants across 15+ US cities. It provides tools for accessing detailed restaurant info, curated lists, and cuisine-specific searches through the Model Context Protocol.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenancePersonalized restaurant recommendations, table bookings, and delivery via MCP, CLI, or API, learning user taste and acting proactively.MIT
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/compass-food/compass-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server