nourish_get_foodRetrieve detailed food data by source ID from USDA, Open Food Facts, or TACO. Get accurate nutrition information for a specific food item.
Fetch a USDA food by source_id, an Open Food Facts food by barcode source_id, or a TACO food by source_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | ||
| source_id | Yes | ||
| response_format | No | json |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.2v0.7.0v0.6.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the data sources and the method of retrieval, but does not elaborate on behavior such as what happens if the ID is not found or rate limits. Given the annotations cover safety, the description provides minimal extra transparency, not contradicting annotations.
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 a single sentence of 17 words, front-loaded with the action 'Fetch'. It is concise, contains no fluff, and every word adds value. Excellent structure.
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?
For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality but omits details on response format, error handling, and parameter formats. Given the complexity, it is somewhat incomplete but adequate for basic understanding.
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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The tool description only mentions source_id generically, without explaining the expected format for each source (e.g., numeric for USDA) or the purpose of response_format. It fails to add meaning beyond the parameter names and types.
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 the tool fetches a food item from three specific databases (USDA, Open Food Facts, TACO) using an identifier. It uses the verb 'Fetch' and specifies the resource, distinguishing it from siblings like nourish_search_food. However, it could be more explicit about the required parameters and the exact role of each source.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nourish_lookup_barcode or nourish_search_food. The agent may be confused because there is a separate tool for barcode lookup, but this tool also accepts barcode IDs for Open Food Facts. The description does not help select among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.