Skip to main content
Glama
eait-fit

fooddb

Official
by eait-fit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to fooddb

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • Nutriscan MCP connector

      si-essence
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables food and nutrition lookups from Open Food Facts and USDA FoodData Central, plus local meal logging, barcode and product searches, nutrient comparisons, allergen and additive data, and daily meal totals.
      MIT

    • Open Food Facts MCP Server

      caleb-conner
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI assistants to access the Open Food Facts database to query detailed food product information, nutritional data, and environmental scores. Supports product lookup by barcode, smart search with filtering, nutritional analysis, product comparison, and dietary recommendations to help users make informed food choices.
      5
      1
      MIT

    • USDA Nutrition Database MCP

      HemantaPatil
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Provides intelligent access to the USDA nutrition database through AI assistants, enabling users to search foods, compare nutritional content, find foods high in specific nutrients, and query authoritative nutrition data across 7,146+ food items through natural language.
      1
      -
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    B3/5.0

    Scored across 9 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    The four retrieval tools (search_foods, get_food, get_product_by_barcode, get_record_product) are distinguished by lookup key, which is reasonably clear, though get_food vs get_record_product could be momentarily confused since both return a single product. review_queue and decide_review are clearly complementary read/act pairs. Overall purposes are mostly distinct.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Most tools follow a clean verb_noun pattern (search_foods, get_food, decide_review, split_product, read_label), with get_* forms used consistently for lookups. health_report and review_queue break the verb_noun convention as noun phrases, a minor deviation. No mixed casing; all snake_case.

    Tool Count5/5

    Nine tools is well-scoped for a food database with a curation/review workflow. Each tool covers a distinct lookup path or workflow step, and none feels redundant or filler.

    Completeness4/5

    Retrieval is thorough (name, barcode, id, source record) and the review/merge/label-reading lifecycle is covered. However there is no direct tool to edit or create product/nutrient values, and no listing/trigger for fetchers, so manual data management has minor gaps.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessResponsive

    Resources