Find community-contributed food definitions by keyword, category, or barcode to identify foods and access popular entries.
Search or browse community-contributed food definitions, sorted by popularity
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default: 50) | |
| search | No | Search query to filter community foods | |
| barcode | No | Look up by exact barcode | |
| category | No | Filter by food category |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a behavioral trait ('sorted by popularity') beyond the schema, but does not disclose any side effects, limitations, or output characteristics. With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and provides only minimal behavioral context, though the read-only nature is implied by 'search or browse'.
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 with no wasted words and is front-loaded with the action verbs. It is concise and well-structured, though it may be slightly under-specified given the tool has four parameters and several closely related siblings.
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 covers the core purpose but lacks explicit usage guidance relative to sibling search tools and does not describe return behavior in the absence of an output schema. The schema covers parameter meanings well, but the tool's selection criteria and output expectations are not fully addressed.
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 schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions and has 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. It does not mention or elaborate on any parameters, which is acceptable under the baseline for full schema coverage.
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's function with specific verbs ('search or browse') and a specific resource ('community-contributed food definitions'). The qualifier 'community-contributed' distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_foods or list_food_definitions, which likely cover other scopes.
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 choose this tool over alternatives such as search_foods or lookup_barcode. The description does not include any when/when-not conditions or alternative references, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria solely from the word 'community-contributed'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.