Retrieves detailed nutrition information for a specified fruit by name from Fruityvice, enabling lookup of calories, vitamins, and other nutritional data.
Get detailed nutrition info for a specific fruit from Fruityvice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Fruit name (e.g. banana, apple, strawberry). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the return is 'detailed nutrition info' from Fruityvice, but says nothing about error behavior (unknown fruit), auth, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single efficient sentence with the verb, resource, and source front-loaded. Zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter read-only lookup with rich annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly. Minor gap is not describing behavior on unknown fruit names.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'name' parameter is fully documented with examples in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond 'specific fruit', so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed nutrition info for a specific fruit') and identifies the source (Fruityvice). It implicitly contrasts 'a specific fruit' with the sibling fruityvice_all, but does not name it explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: it suggests use when you have a specific fruit name. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to fruityvice_all as the alternative for listing all fruits.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.