FatSecret MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.0.9
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action or resource, with clear boundaries between food search, recipe lookup, food diary management, weight tracking, exercise, and auth flows. No two tools have overlapping or ambiguous purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., search_foods, create_food_entry, get_profile). Even compound names like find_food_by_barcode and copy_saved_meal_entries maintain the same structure. No mixing of conventions.
Tool Count2/5
With 44 tools, the server is significantly over the typical well-scoped range of 3–15. While the FatSecret API is broad, this many tools in one server can overwhelm agents, and some functionality (e.g., auth setup with 4 tools) could be consolidated.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers most major operations: food and recipe search, diary CRUD, favorites, saved meals, weight logging, and exercise. Minor gaps exist, such as missing single-date weight retrieval and lack of direct exercise entry creation, but core workflows are supported.
Average 3.8/5 across 44 of 44 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 1, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, establishing the tool as a safe, read-only operation. The description adds one behavioral trait: it is 'Premier exclusive,' which tells the agent that access is restricted. However, it does not describe whether results are cached, the effect of region/language parameters, or error behavior for non-Premier users. With annotations covering the core safety profile, the description adds minimal additional behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with only two sentences: one stating purpose and one adding a restriction. No words are wasted, and the key action is front-loaded. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing important parameter clarifications, which is a trade-off that prevents a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two unexplained parameters, no output schema, and minimal description, the contextual completeness is low. The description does not mention filtering behavior, expected output format, or how region/language should be used. While annotations cover safety, the description fails to bridge the gap for the agent to correctly invoke the tool, especially given the presence of region and language fields that likely narrow the 'full list' mentioned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters (region, language) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema itself provides no meaning. The description says 'Get the full list of food categories,' which suggests no filtering, yet the parameters imply potential filtering by region and language. The description does not explain what these parameters do or how they affect the result, failing to compensate for the schema gap. An agent cannot infer correct usage from this description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets 'the full list of food categories,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. It also adds 'Premier exclusive' to indicate scope. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like get_food_sub_categories, the 'full list' wording implicitly distinguishes it from subcategories. However, it could be more explicit about what this tool does versus related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_food_sub_categories, search_foods, or get_food. It only mentions a 'Premier exclusive' restriction, which is a prerequisite but not a usage comparison. There is no discussion of context, prerequisites (beyond Premier), or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the 'Premier exclusive' constraint, which is valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with two short sentences. It is front-loaded with purpose. However, it is under-specified given the tool has four parameters and no output schema, sacrificing completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is highly incomplete. It does not explain the return format (autocomplete suggestions), the effect of optional parameters, or how the premier exclusivity is enforced. Without an output schema, the agent lacks critical information to invoke and interpret results correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (only 'expression' has a description). The tool description adds no information about the three undocumented parameters (region, language, max_results), leaving the agent without guidance on their meaning or use.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'autocomplete suggestions for a partial food search expression', and adds the 'Premier exclusive' qualifier. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like search_foods, though the autocomplete nature is implied.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_foods, nor does it explain any conditions or prerequisites beyond the premier exclusivity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'Remove' aligns. It adds value by specifying authentication requirements ('check_auth_status first'), but does not explain behavior for the two optional parameters (serving_id, number_of_units) or elaborate on idempotency beyond the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences front-load the purpose and key requirement. No unnecessary words. Could be slightly improved with clearer order or bullet points, but it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description omits many contextual details: optional parameter roles, return values, side effects (e.g., if food is not in favorites), and contrast with similar sibling delete tools. Given three parameters and no output schema, the agent receives insufficient information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (food_id described). The description mentions 'Remove a food' implicitly referring to food_id, but provides no meaning or usage for serving_id and number_of_units. With low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Remove a food from the user's favorites' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_favorite_recipe' or 'delete_food_entry', relying on the tool name to imply resource type. This is clear but not fully differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Only a prerequisite is given ('Requires profile auth'), with no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_favorite_recipe, delete_food_entry). There is no mention of idempotency or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision-making context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns 'food names, descriptions, and basic nutrition info,' which is minimally informative. It does not disclose pagination behavior, result limits, or how region/language affect results, so it adds only marginal value beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the verb 'Search,' and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core action and return content. However, given the tool's 10 parameters and many siblings, it could be slightly expanded to improve clarity without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 10 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It omits pagination details (max_results, page_number), filtering options (region, language, food_type), and does not explain what 'basic nutrition info' entails. An agent cannot reliably anticipate all input constraints or result structure from this description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 10% (only search_expression has a description). The description does not explain any parameters beyond the search query. With 9 undocumented parameters (region, language, food_type, etc.), the description fails to compensate for the sparse schema. The agent receives no guidance on how to use these optional parameters effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it searches the FatSecret food database and returns names, descriptions, and basic nutrition info. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_food (single item details) and search_recipes (different resource). However, it could be more precise about what 'basic nutrition info' includes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 autocomplete_foods, find_food_by_barcode, or search_recipes. The description offers no decision criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. The description adds that this is limited to Premier users, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not describe what happens when filters are applied (e.g., case sensitivity, empty results).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short at one sentence, which is efficient. It conveys the core purpose and a key restriction (Premier exclusive) without waste. However, it could be slightly more structured to better explain the optional filters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 optional parameters, no enums, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It explains two of the four parameters and mentions the Premier restriction, but does not cover region, language, output format, or how results are ordered. The annotations help but the description leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the four undocumented parameters. The description mentions filtering by 'starting letter' (maps to starts_with) and 'type' (maps to brand_type), but does not explain region or language parameters. With zero schema coverage, the description only partially bridges the gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('list of food brands'), and mentions optional filtering by starting letter and type. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling tools that also involve retrieving food-related data, such as 'get_food' or 'search_foods'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says 'Premier exclusive' which gives some context about when the tool is available, but there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools like 'search_foods', 'get_food', or 'autocomplete_foods'. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, reducing the burden on the description. The description confirms read-only behavior ('Search recipes'). However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior (the page_number parameter exists but isn't mentioned), rate limits, or that the 'open world' hint means it may search external sources. This is adequate but not enhanced beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that lists key filter categories without unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose ('Search recipes') and then enumerates filter types efficiently. Could potentially be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 17 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is moderately insufficient. It provides enough for simple searches but lacks specifics on filter range semantics, result ordering (sort_by), pagination, and the matchall boolean. The annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) compensate partially, but return format is completely unaddressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 6% (only search_expression has a description), so the description must compensate. While it lists parameter categories (calories, macros, prep time, recipe types), it doesn't explain the 'from'/'to' range semantics, how sort_by works, what recipe_types_matchall means, or the relationship between search_expression and other filters. This is insufficient for 17 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Search recipes with optional filters', specifying both the verb (Search) and resource (recipes). The mention of specific filter types (calories, macros, prep time, recipe types) distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_foods or get_recipe. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_recipe which might be a singular recipe lookup, leaving slight ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like search_foods or get_recipe. It doesn't mention that this is for recipe-specific search versus food search, nor does it specify when not to use it. The openWorldHint annotation suggests it works with external data but this isn't explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent. The description adds the auth requirement, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other traits like potential duplicate handling, side effects, or return behavior. With annotations covering basic mutation, the added auth info justifies a score of 3.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, consisting of one sentence plus an auth note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While concise, it sacrifices completeness; however, for conciseness itself, it earns a high score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, CRUD siblings), the description is incomplete. It omits what 'meals' and 'saved_meal_description' mean, what the response is, and how this tool fits exactly in the workflow. The auth requirement is useful, but overall the description leaves significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only saved_meal_name has a brief description). The tool description adds no parameter explanations, failing to compensate for the low coverage. Since the description must add meaning beyond the schema and fails to do so, the score is low.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it creates a new saved meal, using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_saved_meals, edit_saved_meal, and delete_saved_meal, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not define what a 'saved meal' represents in this context, which would add further clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a prerequisite: profile authentication via check_auth_status. This is helpful but does not give guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to create vs. edit). It lacks explicit conditions for use or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already specify idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating a write operation that can be safely retried. The description adds the auth prerequisite but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it replaces an existing favorite if already present, or any error implications. With annotations covering the core safety profile, the description provides some additional context but remains incomplete for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at two sentences, no wasted words, and front-loads the primary purpose. It earns a high score for being efficient, though it could add more behavioral detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 1 parameter, no output schema, and annotations cover idempotency and mutability. The description covers purpose and auth prerequisite but omits details like return value, idempotent behavior confirmation (e.g., duplicate insert handling), or whether the tool operates on the authenticated user's favorites. For a simple mutation tool, this is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (1 parameter documented). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's 'Recipe ID to add to favorites', which already states the parameter's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add'), the resource ('recipe to favorite'), and the target ('user's favorites'). It suffers slightly because the name already conveys most of this, but it does add context about the user scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies a prerequisite ('Requires profile auth (check_auth_status first)'), which provides clear when-to-use guidance for authentication. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_favorite_recipes' or 'delete_favorite_recipe', missing an opportunity to clarify that it is for adding only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds value by noting the authentication requirement, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., duplicate handling), error conditions, or success/failure responses, which are important for an agent to invoke correctly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences: one stating the action and one stating a prerequisite. There is no wasted text, and the most important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 required parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the parameters interact, validation rules, or potential failure modes. An agent needs more context to confidently use this mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with brief descriptions for all five parameters. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, such as parameter relationships, constraints, or valid ranges, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra clarification.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Add a food item to a saved meal' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like edit_saved_meal_item or delete_saved_meal_item, leaving some ambiguity for the agent about when to choose this specific tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions a prerequisite ('Requires profile auth (check_auth_status first)') which provides some context, but it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., copy_saved_meal_entries, create_food_entry) and does not indicate when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare 'destructiveHint: true' and 'idempotentHint: true'. The description correctly implies mutability ('delete') which aligns with this. However, it doesn't disclose the result of idempotency (e.g., calling again on a deleted entry), rate limits, or cascading effects, which would have raised the score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the action, and the second provides critical imperative setup information. No words are wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple mutation with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It includes necessary auth context but feels slightly light. The setup dependency is its main value add.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the only parameter 'food_entry_id' is self-explanatory. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('delete'), the resource ('food diary entry'), and the identifier ('by ID'). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'edit_food_entry' or 'create_food_entry' by specifying the action and that it uses an ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a prerequisite (requires profile auth) and an action to perform first (check_auth_status). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or discuss alternatives like batch deletes or soft deletes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the auth requirement, which is useful beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like side effects, confirmation, or error handling. With annotations covering the write nature, the description adds some value but not comprehensive disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. It is efficient and free of fluff. However, the second sentence could be merged with the first to reduce redundancy, so it is not maximally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., entry ID, confirmation) and any constraints. It only highlights three required parameters and auth, missing critical context like behavior on duplicate entries, date format implications, or error scenarios. This is insufficient for a creation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions that 'food_id, serving_id, and meal type' are required, but this is already captured in the schema's required array. No additional semantic meaning (e.g., format, constraints) is added beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add a food diary entry') and the resource, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'edit_food_entry' (modify) and 'delete_food_entry' (remove). The verb+resource pattern is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a prerequisite ('Requires profile auth (check_auth_status first)') which provides context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'edit_food_entry' for modifications). No when-not-to-use guidance is given, making it adequate but not strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the authentication requirement, which is not in annotations. It does not elaborate on idempotency behavior (e.g., error on double deletion) or any side effects, but the annotation coverage is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value: purpose and prerequisite.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and prerequisite. However, it does not address return value, error conditions, or cascade effects on items. Given the presence of delete_saved_meal_item, more context about the scope of deletion would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter described as 'Saved meal ID to delete'. The description simply repeats the same information without adding extra context about ID format or source.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a saved meal' with a specific verb and resource. It correctly distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_saved_meal_item by focusing on the entire saved meal rather than individual items.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description only provides an authentication prerequisite but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_saved_meal_item. It does not explain when it is appropriate to delete a saved meal rather than an item.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true) already establish safety. The description adds the contents of the response but no behavioral details like error conditions, pagination behavior, or rate limits. It does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, 11 words, front-loaded with verb and resource. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema; the description leaves max_results and page_number unexplained. While it lists the main return contents, the optional parameters and any pagination behavior are unaddressed, making the description incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 33% (only recipe_id has a description). The description reinforces 'by ID' but does not explain max_results or page_number. Since the description must compensate for low schema coverage and does not, it falls short.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'detailed recipe information by ID' and lists contents (ingredients, directions, nutrition). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_recipes and get_recipe_types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: it's for when you already have a recipe ID. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_recipes or other recipe-related tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds that it returns servings, calories, macros, and micronutrients, providing useful return-value context beyond the annotations. This exceeds what annotations alone offer.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and adds specific return value details. It is concise and no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by listing the return fields explicitly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 8 parameters (only 1 required) with low schema coverage, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is lacking in fully explaining all input options and response structure. It covers the main output categories but misses guidance on optional parameters and how results vary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low at 13%, meaning most parameters have no description in the schema. The description mentions food_id as the key input but does not explain the other 7 parameters like region, language, page_number, etc. This is a gap, but the core purpose parameter is covered. Baseline adjusted to 3 due to low coverage not being fully compensated.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it gets nutritional information for a specific food by ID, specifying the resource (food) and the action (get). It distinguishes it from siblings like search_foods and find_food_by_barcode which are for finding foods, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_recipe or others, but the food-specific focus is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when you have a food ID and need detailed nutritional info, and siblings like search_foods suggest alternatives for finding foods without an ID. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention prerequisites like having a valid food_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds behavioral context (auth requirement, first-time extra params), but doesn't elaborate on side effects or whether updating an existing date overwrites or appends. This is adequate given the annotation context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, each with distinct valuable info (core action, first-time requirements, auth prerequisite). Efficient and front-loaded, no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 7 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does not fully cover what happens on success, validation rules, or the meaning of height_type/weight_type. It captures the main workflow but leaves gaps, especially for a tool that likely returns a status or entry ID.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is very low (29%), so the description must compensate. It mentions goal_weight_kg and current_height_cm for first weigh-in, and date as implicit, but doesn't explain comment, height_type, or weight_type. The description adds some value but leaves many parameters unexplained, matching the baseline for low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool records weight for a date, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_weight_month or search_foods, but could be slightly more precise by emphasizing it updates or creates a single entry.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly notes that the first weigh-in requires goal_weight_kg and current_height_cm, and advises checking auth status first with check_auth_status. This provides clear context, though it lacks explicit alternatives for when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and idempotentHint true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds a concrete behavioral requirement: authentication via 'check_auth_status first'. No contradictions exist, but the description does not elaborate on behaviors like pagination, error handling, or what happens if both parameters are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: the first states the purpose and modes, the second adds the authentication prerequisite. No redundant or vague language. Information is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and moderate schema coverage (50%), the description explains the core functionality and parameter interaction but does not describe the return format (e.g., array of entries) or what happens on error. For a simple getter, it is adequate but could be more complete regarding output details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (date described in schema, food_entry_id not). The description adds semantic value by stating 'date or a specific entry by ID' and implying that date is required if food_entry_id is not specified. This compensates for the schema's lack of a required field constraint and clarifies the mutual condition, though it does not specify behavior if both are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'food diary entries', and specifies two modes: 'for a date or a specific entry by ID'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_food_entry, edit_food_entry, and other getters such as get_food_entries_month.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage guidance is the prerequisite 'Requires profile auth (check_auth_status first)'. There is no mention of when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_food_entries_month for month ranges, or get_favorite_foods) nor any exclusion criteria. The guidance is limited to authentication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, making the safety profile clear. The description adds the behavioral constraint 'Premier exclusive', which informs the agent about access requirements beyond the annotations. No contradictions. The description could mention result format or side effects, but with annotations covering the basics, this is strong.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, each carrying distinct and valuable information. No filler or repetition. The core purpose and a key restriction (Premier exclusive) are front-loaded. This is a model of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description omits important context: what the output looks like (list of sub-categories? with IDs/names?), how region and language affect results, and whether pagination or ordering applies. Given no output schema and moderate parameter complexity, the description is incomplete for reliable tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only food_category_id is documented). The tool description does not explain the role of 'region' or 'language', leaving their meaning to the agent's inference. With low coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not. This hurts the agent's ability to construct correct invocations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'food sub categories', and the context 'for a given food category'. The addition of 'Premier exclusive' further clarifies the scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_food_categories, which retrieves top-level categories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a food category ID is available and explicitly restricts to Premier users. However, it does not mention when not to use it, nor does it suggest alternative tools (e.g., get_food_categories) for other scenarios. The guidance is present but minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description is not required to restate those. However, it adds valuable behavioral context: authentication requirements ('Requires profile auth (check_auth_status first)'). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand a critical precondition. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence is the core purpose, and the second adds an essential prerequisite. It is front-loaded, brief, and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the main action and a key precondition. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., what fields each item contains). Since there is no output schema, the agent is left to infer the structure from the tool name and sibling context. This gap reduces completeness slightly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the single parameter 'saved_meal_id' has a description in the schema). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as constraints, format, or how to obtain the ID. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description does not improve upon it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Get all food items in a saved meal.' This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like 'get_saved_meals' (which retrieves meal metadata) and 'add_saved_meal_item' (which creates items). The scope is explicit and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description only mentions a prerequisite ('Requires profile auth') but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not compare with siblings like 'get_saved_meals' or 'add_saved_meal_item', nor does it specify the context needed (e.g., having a saved_meal_id). The agent is left to infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are sparse (only readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description carries the burden. It correctly indicates a write operation completing OAuth, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as success/failure outcomes, side effects (e.g., storing credentials), or whether the flow can be repeated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the essential information efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and input. However, it omits mention of prerequisites (e.g., that 'start_auth' must have been called) and does not describe what happens on completion or error, which would enhance completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'verifier' already described clearly. The description repeats the same information without adding extra meaning (e.g., format, length constraints, or source expectations).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Complete' and the resource 'OAuth 1.0 flow', and includes the specific input (verifier code). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'start_auth' and 'check_auth_status' by indicating it is the final step of the authentication process.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after obtaining the verifier code from an authorization page, but does not explicitly specify when not to use it, mention prerequisites (e.g., 'start_auth' must be called first), or list alternative tools that might be used instead (e.g., 'check_auth_status' for verification).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description is not required to restate mutation. It adds value by specifying the auth requirement (profile auth) and suggesting a check_auth_status first, which is beyond the structured annotations. It does not disclose other behaviors such as duplicate creation on repeated calls, but the idempotentHint already covers that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loading the primary action in the first sentence and adding an important prerequisite in the second. There is no redundant or extraneous information, making it an efficient and well-structured description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description sufficiently covers the core function and auth requirement. While there is no output schema and the description omits details about return values or error handling, the operation is straightforward and the schema covers parameters, making the description almost complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all three parameters clearly described. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with a specific verb 'Copy' and identifies the resource ('entries from a saved meal') and the target ('a meal on a specific date'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like copy_food_entries, which copies existing entries between meals, and get_saved_meals, which retrieves saved meals.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a precondition: 'Requires profile auth (check_auth_status first),' which guides sequencing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like copy_food_entries or create_food_entry, nor does it mention exclusions. The usage is implied by the purpose, but not explicitly articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the core safety profile is clear. The description adds value by stating 'Premier exclusive' (a behavioral constraint about requiring a specific subscription or access level) which goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, each providing distinct information: the core action and the exclusivity constraint. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly more structured with separators for different types of information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 7 parameters (only 1 required), no output schema, and siblings like search_foods and get_food, the description tells the agent enough to select the tool but not enough to invoke it correctly. Missing details include what the return data looks like, how region/language affect results, and what happens for invalid barcodes. The annotations cover safety, but invocation guidance is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low at 14%, but the description adds no detail about the 6 optional parameters (region, language, include_food_images, etc.) beyond what the schema's property names imply. The description only elaborates on the single required parameter (barcode: 'GTIN-13 barcode number'), which is already described in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description doesn't compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's verb ('Find') and resource ('food by barcode'), specifies the exact barcode formats supported (GTIN-13, UPC-A, EAN-13, EAN-8), and includes a distinguishing phrase 'Premier exclusive' which differentiates it from sibling tools like search_foods or get_food.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a user has a barcode (GTIN-13 format) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_foods or get_food. There are no when-not-to-use instructions or mentions of prerequisites like barcode length validation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already specify readOnlyHint: false and idempotentHint: false, implying mutation. The description adds value by disclosing the authorization requirement and exclusivity. It does not contradict annotations. It could be improved by mentioning that the tool creates a new custom food definition accessible to the user's account.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: three short sentences, each delivering a distinct piece of information (action, exclusivity, auth requirement). No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large number of parameters (25) and the lack of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the return value is (e.g., created food ID), nor does it clarify the many optional fields. However, for a creation tool with clear auth context, it's minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low at 28%, so the description should compensate. The description only mentions 'nutrition info' in general, with no specific parameter details. It does not explain what the many optional string parameters (e.g., iron, calcium) represent. With 25 parameters, more guidance would be helpful, but the required parameters are covered by the schema briefly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'custom food with nutrition info'. It distinguishes from siblings like search_foods and get_food by specifying creation of a custom food entry, but does not explicitly differentiate from create_food_entry which also creates a food-related entry.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: 'Premier exclusive' indicates a subscription requirement, and 'Requires profile auth (check_auth_status first)' gives a prerequisite step. However, it does not specify when NOT to use this tool (e.g., if the user wants to log a food, they should use create_food_entry instead).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description is consistent with these. It adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the auth requirement, which is not captured in annotations. It does not contradict any annotation, and the additional auth detail improves transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and target fields, the second adds a critical prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description does not fully cover the 'meals' parameter's semantics or the return behavior. It does not differentiate from the sibling 'edit_saved_meal_item'. The auth requirement is helpful, but the agent may still be uncertain about how to format the 'meals' parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 25% (only 'saved_meal_id' has a description). The description lists the editable fields, mapping to the parameter names, but it does not explain the format or expected values for 'meals' (e.g., is it a JSON array of IDs? a string?). This partial compensation prevents a lower score, but more detail is needed for fully correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('saved meal') and lists the exact fields that can be modified ('name, description, or associated meals'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'edit_saved_meal_item' (which edits items within a meal) and 'create_saved_meal'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a prerequisite ('Requires profile auth (check_auth_status first)') which is useful for invoking the tool correctly. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with similar siblings like 'edit_saved_meal_item' or 'copy_saved_meal_entries', leaving the agent to infer when to use this one versus others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, meaning the tool is safe to retry but modifies data. The description adds that serving_id cannot be changed and requires auth. This adds value but does not elaborate on side effects or error conditions for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences front-loaded with the primary action and editable items, followed by constraints and auth requirement. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema) and absence of output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: what can be edited, what cannot, and a prerequisite. It is complete enough for an AI agent to use correctly, though it could mention the return value or cancellation conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low (33%), so the description must compensate. It names two editable fields (name or units) mapping to saved_meal_item_name and number_of_units, and explicitly states that serving_id cannot be changed. It does not explain saved_meal_item_id beyond being the identifier, but its purpose is clear from context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool edits a food item in a saved meal, specifying editable fields (name or units). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_saved_meal_item and delete_saved_meal_item by focusing on modification, though it does not explicitly differentiate from edit_saved_meal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit context: it edits a specific type of item (food item in a saved meal) and includes a prerequisite to check auth status. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives (e.g., when to use edit_saved_meal instead).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description notes the auth requirement, which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, the annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the tool is clearly safe and non-destructive. The description does not elaborate on return format, pagination, or what counts as 'favorite foods', but for a zero-parameter tool with strong annotations, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the core action in the first sentence and adding critical prerequisite info in the second. Every sentence adds value without any wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a simple, zero-parameter, read-only tool with complete annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the function, the auth requirement, and there is no output schema to document. The tool is low-complexity and the description covers the essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters and is 100% covered. The description adds no parameter details (none needed), and a baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema provides all needed information and the description doesn't add any redundant parameter info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'the user's favorite foods', clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_favorite_recipes' and 'get_most_eaten_foods' by specifically focusing on foods, though it doesn't explicitly contrast against these siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states that profile authentication is required via 'check_auth_status', giving clear context for proper use and a prerequisite action. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_most_eaten_foods' or 'get_recently_eaten_foods', missing explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the unchangeable date constraint and the prerequisite auth requirement, which are not covered by annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with no waste: purpose statement, a critical constraint, and a prerequisite. Front-loaded with the core action, each sentence provides distinct value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, a constraint, and auth need. However, it lacks guidance on which optional parameters to use, error behavior, or idempotency implications, leaving gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 40%. The description does not explain any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. It mentions 'date' which is not a parameter, causing potential confusion. No added value for parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses 'Edit an existing food diary entry' with a specific verb and resource. Among siblings like create_food_entry and delete_food_entry, it clearly distinguishes the edit operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states the constraint 'Cannot change the date,' guiding against using this tool for date modifications. It also requires profile auth, but does not explicitly mention alternatives like using delete+create for date changes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds the critical behavioral requirement of authentication, which impacts tool invocation. No contradictions are present, and the description enhances transparency beyond the structured fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero wasted text. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the mandatory prerequisite is stated in the second. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description adequately covers the core function and a critical prerequisite. It could optionally mention the return format or behavior when no data exists, but this is not essential given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with the 'date' parameter already described in the schema as 'Any date within the target month (YYYY-MM-DD)'. The tool description does not add any further semantic detail about the parameter, so it meets the baseline expectation without improvement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves 'daily calories expended from exercise for a month' with a specific verb and resource. This distinctly separates it from siblings like 'get_exercises' (which likely lists exercises) and 'get_food_entries_month' (food, not exercise).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions a prerequisite ('Requires profile auth (check_auth_status first)'), which provides useful context but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No explicit exclusions or alternative tool references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds the auth requirement context beyond the annotations. No behavioral contradictions or omissions noted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two brief sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide a critical usage note. Every word serves a purpose with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple input schema (1 param, no output schema), the description covers purpose, auth prerequisite, and scope. No output schema exists, but describing return values isn't strictly required for a simple retrieval tool. The description is complete enough for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a well-described parameter. The description adds nothing beyond the schema for the parameter itself, but the tool-level description hints at the month context. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents the single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('weight entries for a month'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_food_entries_month' which targets food rather than weight. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Requires profile auth (check_auth_status first)', providing a clear precondition and referencing a sibling tool ('check_auth_status') as a prerequisite step. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, but for a simple retrieval tool this is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not required to repeat those. The description adds value by stating the auth requirement, which is not in annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as what happens if the template already exists, if days are invalid, or if no exercise entries are present. The idempotency hint is not explained in the description. Score 3 is appropriate as the description adds moderate context beyond annotations but lacks full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two short, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second adds a critical prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words. This is an excellent example of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema, the description could be more complete by mentioning the expected return value (e.g., success indicator or template ID). However, the operation is a simple save, and the description covers the essential purpose and prerequisite. It is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's role, though it lacks edge-case details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (date and days) are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct since the schema carries the full burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Save'), the resource ('current day's exercise entries as a template'), and the target ('specified days of the week'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which mention templates. The verb+resource+scope is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear prerequisite ('Requires profile auth (check_auth_status first)'), which helps the agent understand the context. While there are no alternative template tools to differentiate, the description effectively sets the usage context. It could be improved by mentioning when not to use it (e.g., for food templates), but the current guidance is sufficient given the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation ('readOnlyHint': false, 'idempotentHint': false). The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating that authentication is required and directs the agent to check auth status first. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose and optional filter; the second adds a key prerequisite. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and three simple parameters, the description covers purpose and auth. However, it omits what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, count of copied entries) and doesn't address behavior on conflicts or duplicates. This limits completeness for a mutation operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds meaning by noting that the 'meal' parameter is optional, clarifying its role as a filter. This is a useful addition beyond the schema's 'Meal type' label.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Copy food entries'), the resource scope ('from one date to another'), and an optional modifier ('filtered by meal'). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_food_entry, delete_food_entry, and copy_saved_meal_entries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the prerequisite 'Requires profile auth (check_auth_status first)' but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like copy_saved_meal_entries (which copies from saved meals, not dates). Usage is implied but not contrasted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and idempotentHint=false. The description adds the auth requirement, which is not in annotations, and clarifies the core behavior. It does not disclose error behaviors or limits, but goes beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence describes the action, the second adds a critical prerequisite. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 7-parameter mutation tool without an output schema, the description explains the core action and auth requirement but omits details on optional parameters, return values, error conditions, or limits (e.g., what happens if insufficient minutes exist). Adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 57% (4 of 7 params described). The description adds meaning for shift_from_id, shift_to_id, and minutes by explaining the shifting operation, but does not address undocumented parameters like kcal, shift_to_name, shift_from_name. It partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'shift' and resource 'exercise time between activities', and specifies it moves minutes from one exercise to another. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which perform this operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes a prerequisite (profile auth and check_auth_status) but does not explicitly discuss when to use vs alternatives. However, as the only tool for shifting exercise minutes, the context is clear enough to guide usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true, so the description does not need to repeat those. The description adds value by specifying the authentication requirement, which is not covered by annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, or limits on the returned list.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. Every word serves a clear purpose: stating the action, the optional filter, and the auth requirement. This is an ideal level of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It conveys the purpose, the optional filter, and the authentication prerequisite. No additional information is required for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the single parameter 'meal' has a description and enum values). The description merely restates that the result is 'optionally filtered by meal', adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Per the rubric, with high coverage the baseline is 3, and no additional semantics are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get the user's most eaten foods') and clearly states the optional meal filter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recently_eaten_foods, get_favorite_foods, and search_foods, which have different semantics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states a prerequisite: 'Requires profile auth (check_auth_status first).' This provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus other similar food listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the agent knows it is safe and side-effect-free. The description adds context about what is being checked but does not disclose the return format (e.g., boolean or detailed status). This is adequate but not exceptional given the low complexity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences (19 words), front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context for a simple check. It could mention the nature of the return value, but the guidance 'Call this first' suffices for the agent's decision-making alongside annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the input schema is fully covered per the 100% coverage baseline. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, earning a baseline score of 4 as per rubric.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it checks API credentials and profile authentication, distinguishing it from authentication setup tools like setup_credentials and start_auth. The verb 'Check' and specific resources make the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Call this first to understand what setup is needed,' providing clear guidance on when to use it. It implies it should precede authentication or data tools, though it does not elaborate on when not to use it or provide explicit alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the need for profile auth and the recommendation to check auth status first. Since annotations already handle the core behavioral traits, the description's extra guidance about auth requirements is worthwhile and does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—two short sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: defining the tool's action and stating a prerequisite. No filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the primary function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations covering readOnly and idempotent behavior, the description is complete. It effectively communicates the core purpose and an essential prerequisite. There is no missing information that would hinder an agent from using this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (by virtue of having no properties). The description does not add parameter semantics because there are none. With no parameters to describe, the tool is self-explanatory in that regard; the description focuses on other useful information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool gets the full list of supported exercise types and their IDs. The verb 'Get' and the resource 'exercise types and their IDs' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_exercise_entries_month' or 'edit_exercise_entries', but the scoping to 'supported exercise types' vs. user entries or editing is implied by the contrasting nature of the sibling names.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides an explicit prerequisite: 'Requires profile auth (check_auth_status first).' This tells the agent when to use this tool (after authentication) and implies a workflow dependency. There is no explicit mention of when not to use it or alternative tools for similar purposes, but the auth guidance is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states that profile authentication is required (auth check) and that the tool returns daily data summaries. The annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true, and the description is consistent with these. The description effectively complements the annotations without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of three short sentences that deliver essential information: what the tool does (daily nutrition summary), the output content (calories and macros), and a prerequisite (check auth status). No extraneous words are present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, annotations declare read-only and idempotent), the description adequately covers the necessary details. It specifies the output fields (calories and macros) even without an output schema, which is helpful. A minor gap is the absence of mention of pagination or month format, but this is not critical for a summary tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter. The schema already explains that 'date' should be 'Any date within the target month (YYYY-MM-DD)'. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond confirming the date input, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets a 'daily nutrition summary for a month' including 'calories and macros per day', and specifies the input is a date within the target month. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_food_entries (which likely returns detailed entries) and get_weight_month (which returns weight data), making the purpose specific and unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs the agent to 'check_auth_status first' as a prerequisite, which is a clear usage guideline. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_food_entries, nor does it mention any exclusions or limitations (e.g., month range restrictions).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is known to be safe and idempotent. The description adds value by specifying an authentication requirement beyond what annotations provide. Since it does not contradict annotations, it scores well on transparency for a read-only operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and ends with a necessary usage note. Every word earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one optional parameter, no nested objects, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly. The auth prerequisite covers a critical gap. It could potentially mention what the output looks like (e.g., a list of food items) since there's no output schema, but the name implies the return type clearly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has only one optional enum parameter with 100% coverage via its description. The description adds a small amount of context by clarifying the filter is by meal type, but does not add significant meaning beyond the enum values already documented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('recently eaten foods'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_most_eaten_foods' which tracks different foods, and 'get_food_entries' which might be a broader query. The optional filtering by meal adds precision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states a prerequisite: 'Requires profile auth (check_auth_status first)', which is crucial for correct usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_food_entries' or search tools, missing a slight opportunity for differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds that it returns the 'full list' of supported recipe type names, which confirms it's a complete enumeration (not paginated or filtered). However, it does not disclose any additional details like typical size of the list, ordering, or whether names are localized, which would be nice context but is not strictly necessary for a simple, safe list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, precise sentence that contains zero filler. Every word is essential: 'Get' (action), 'full list' (scope), 'supported recipe type names' (exact resource). No repetition, no unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a simple, parameter-free, read-only list operation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It conveys the exact resource returned. A small improvement would be mentioning if the list is sorted or if values correspond to enum values in other tools, but these are nice-to-haves for a tool this straightforward.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters with 100% coverage contextually (no params to document). The description accurately reflects that it's a simple, unfiltered list. Given zero parameters, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail, and it correctly implies the operation has no inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'full list of supported recipe type names'. This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_recipes or get_recipe, as it deals with 'types' not individual recipes, and it's clearly a list operation with no parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is a discovery tool for available recipe categories. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the context from sibling tools (e.g., search_recipes for finding actual recipes, get_recipe for a single recipe) provides clear differentiation. A dedicated 'when to use' sentence would elevate this to 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the extra behavioral context of requiring authentication, and clarifies it removes from favorites (not deleting the recipe). It doesn't contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with the action. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, auth requirement, and the parameter is self-explanatory. The annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the 'recipe_id' parameter fully described in the schema. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Remove a recipe from the user's favorites,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_favorite_food' (different resource) and 'add_favorite_recipe' (opposite action).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly requires 'profile auth (check_auth_status first),' providing a clear prerequisite. While it doesn't specify when not to use or name alternatives, the auth guidance is actionable for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the behavioral constraint of requiring prior authentication, which is beyond what the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations provide. It correctly indicates a read operation, aligning with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys purpose and a key prerequisite.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description leaves 'profile status information' vague. It does not elaborate on what fields or data the agent can expect in the response, which is a gap given the lack of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the schema coverage is 100% trivially. The baseline is 4 per the rule for 0 parameters, and the description does not need to add parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'profile status information', and the scope 'for the authenticated user'. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools that deal with foods, recipes, or exercises.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states that profile auth is required and suggests checking auth status first with 'check_auth_status'. This provides a clear prerequisite but does not discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other profile-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is clearly a safe, read-only operation. The description adds value by disclosing the auth requirement, which annotations don't cover. There is no contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides critical usage guidance. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, rich annotations), the description is complete. It covers the essential purpose, filtering, and auth requirement. No additional details are needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'meal' is fully documented in the schema (enum values and description). The description merely restates the filter option without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('user's saved meals') and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning optional filtering by meal type. It does not confuse with other saved meal tools like create_saved_meal or edit_saved_meal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states a prerequisite ('Requires profile auth (check_auth_status first)'), providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare idempotentHint=true, meaning multiple calls have the same effect; the description confirms this only implicitly by saying it 'saves to persistent config file,' implying it can be re-run. The description does not detail behavior beyond this (e.g., overwriting, error handling), but with idempotentHint present, the bar is lower. The description adds value by specifying the config is persistent, which aligns with idempotency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two short sentences plus a clear action prompt. Every sentence serves a purpose—defining the tool, providing a source, and noting persistence. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setup tool with 100% schema coverage and idempotentHint annotation, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, source, and outcome. It lacks details on what happens if credentials are invalid or if it's called repeatedly, but given the tool's simplicity and prior annotations, this is adequate. A score of 5 would require explicit error/conflict behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with good descriptions. The description adds extra context by specifying the config file persistence and providing a URL for obtaining the credentials. However, the parameter names and schema descriptions are clear, so the description adds modest incremental value. A higher score would require more unique parameter insights.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: configuring FatSecret API credentials. It specifies the verb ('Configure'), the resource ('FatSecret API credentials'), and provides a direct source for obtaining them. This is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on food, recipe, weight, exercise, or auth endpoints, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly guides usage by indicating this is a setup step ('Saves to persistent config file'), suggesting it should be run before using other tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives—though given the uniqueness of a credential-setup tool among siblings, this gap is minor. It would benefit from stating 'should be called once before other API calls' or 'needed once before using other tools.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool returns a URL that the user must visit, which is key behavioral information. Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, lowering the bar for transparency, but starting an OAuth flow typically involves server-side state changes (e.g., generating a request token), which is not mentioned. This creates a mild inconsistency but does not outright contradict.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately follow with the prerequisite and output. Every sentence is essential, with no redundant or wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no input schema and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and its prerequisite. It lacks details on potential errors, URL expiration, or idempotency (annotations note idempotentHint=false, but description doesn't clarify). Still, for a simple initialization tool, it covers the main points.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters (0 params, schema coverage 100%). Baseline score is 4 as per instructions. The description adds value by stating the output (authorization URL), which aligns with the lack of input parameters. No additional parameter description is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's action ('Start the OAuth 1.0 authorization flow'), the resource ('profile access'), and the output ('Returns an authorization URL'). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like setup_credentials and complete_auth, which are separate steps in the flow.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states the prerequisite: 'Requires API credentials (setup_credentials first).' This guides the agent on the necessary prior step. However, it does not specify when not to use the tool (e.g., if already authorized) or mention alternatives, but the context is clear for the intended flow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context by stating the auth requirement. It does not repeat what annotations provide, and adds behavioral value beyond them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero wasted words. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and target, the second provides the prerequisite context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one simple parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It specifies the action, target, and a key prerequisite, leaving no ambiguity for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter fully described. The description does not add additional parameter details, which is acceptable given the parameter is self-explanatory and fully covered by the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'remove' and the resource 'food item from a saved meal', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete_food_entry', 'delete_saved_meal', and 'delete_favorite_food' which operate on different entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states the prerequisite 'Requires profile auth (check_auth_status first)', providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds the critical behavioral detail that authentication is required. This goes beyond the structured data and informs the agent of a necessary precondition.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficient sentences: the first delivers the core purpose, the second provides a critical usage instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is adequate. It states the resource, owner, and auth requirement. The return format could be hinted, but given sibling tools and common knowledge, this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters (input schema is empty), so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. The focus on what the tool returns (user's favorites) provides context beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('the user's favorite recipes'). This distinctively sets it apart from siblings like search_recipes (search all recipes) and get_recipe (single recipe by ID), and from add/delete_favorite_recipe.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly names a prerequisite (profile auth) and recommends an action (check_auth_status first). While it does not specify when to avoid this tool or list full alternatives, the context is clear and directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![fatsecret-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fliptheweb/fatsecret-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fliptheweb/fatsecret-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![fatsecret-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fliptheweb/fatsecret-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fliptheweb/fatsecret-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/fliptheweb/fatsecret-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server