List system and custom food definitions, optionally searching by name or filtering by category to find the right foods for tracking.
List food definitions (system + custom). Optionally search by name or filter by category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | Search foods by name or brand | |
| category | No | Filter by category |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does add useful scope information: 'system + custom' and the optional search/filter behavior, and the verb clearly implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose response shape, pagination, or behavior when no parameters are supplied.
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?
A single sentence conveys the purpose, scope, and optional parameters with no filler. The essential information is front-loaded and nothing extraneous is included.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple list tool with two optional params, but multiple gaps remain: no output schema, no mention of response format, no pagination note, and no relationship to search_foods. An agent would have to infer several operational 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 coverage is 100%, and both params already have descriptive text in the schema. The description's 'search by name or filter by category' largely paraphrases the schema and does not add format, exact-match, or interplay details.
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 operation ('List'), the resource ('food definitions'), and the scope ('system + custom'), with optional search and category filtering mentioned. It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling search_foods, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.
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 search_foods or search_community_foods. The optional search/filter wording describes how to narrow results within the tool, but not the decision context that would route an agent to this tool instead of a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.