Tekuila MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation2/5
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes that could cause confusion. 'analyze_daily_menu' and 'get_current_day_menu' both target today's menu, with the former adding AI analysis instructions. Similarly, 'get_current_week_menu' and 'plan_weekly_menu' both handle the weekly menu, with the latter including planning instructions. This overlap makes it unclear which tool to use for basic retrieval versus enhanced functionality.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear verb_noun structures, such as 'analyze_daily_menu' and 'get_current_date'. However, there is a minor inconsistency: 'get_current_day_menu' and 'get_current_week_menu' use 'day' and 'week' inconsistently with 'daily' and 'weekly' in other tools, but overall the naming is predictable and readable.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, the count is well-scoped for a restaurant menu server focused on daily and weekly planning. Each tool appears to serve a distinct role in the domain, and the number is neither too sparse nor overwhelming, fitting typical expectations for such a purpose.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers retrieval and planning for daily and weekly menus, but there are notable gaps. For example, there are no tools for updating or modifying menus, handling past or future menus beyond the current period, or managing restaurant details like hours or locations. This limits the server's ability to support full lifecycle operations in the domain.
Average 3.3/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'AI planning instructions,' which adds some context beyond a simple fetch, but fails to describe key traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or how the AI instructions are generated. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps, scoring 2.
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, efficient sentence: 'Get this week's menu with AI planning instructions for weekly meal planning.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the menu retrieval from the AI instructions, but it remains concise and clear, scoring 4.
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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and adds 'AI planning instructions,' but without annotations, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety or performance. The output schema should handle return values, so this is acceptable but not thorough, scoring 3.
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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary details while being complete for the schema.
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's purpose: 'Get this week's menu with AI planning instructions for weekly meal planning.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('this week's menu'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_current_week_menu' by adding 'AI planning instructions.' However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'get_current_week_menu' in terms of scope or output format, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_current_week_menu' or 'analyze_daily_menu.' It implies usage for 'weekly meal planning' but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios. This minimal guidance is insufficient for clear decision-making, scoring 2.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. The description lacks essential behavioral context for a tool that presumably fetches dynamic restaurant data.
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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and contains zero redundant information, making it highly efficient for agent comprehension.
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 zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, for a tool that presumably returns dynamic restaurant menu data, the description doesn't address important contextual aspects like data freshness, format of returned menu items, or how 'today' is determined (local time vs. restaurant schedule).
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 zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the input requirements. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing nonexistent parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing confusion about parameters that don't exist.
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 ('Get') and target resource ('today's menu from Tekuila restaurant'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_week_menu' or 'analyze_daily_menu', which would require more specific scope clarification.
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 like 'get_current_week_menu' or 'analyze_daily_menu'. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison with sibling tools, leaving the agent without contextual usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or how it differs from siblings. The output schema may cover return values, but the description doesn't provide enough context for optimal agent use.
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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here, but since there are no parameters to explain, a baseline of 4 is justified as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
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 ('Get') and resource ('this week's menu from Tekuila restaurant'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_day_menu' or 'plan_weekly_menu', which prevents a perfect score.
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 like 'get_current_day_menu' for daily menus or 'plan_weekly_menu' for planning. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, offering only basic context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'AI analysis instructions' but doesn't specify what this entails (e.g., format, depth, or limitations). It also doesn't cover other behavioral traits like performance, error handling, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.
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, clear sentence: 'Get today's menu with AI analysis instructions for daily planning.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and adds value without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
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 that the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values or inputs. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., what 'AI analysis instructions' include), and with no annotations, this leaves the agent with incomplete context for a tool that involves analysis. It's adequate but has clear gaps in transparency.
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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids unnecessary details. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't mislead about inputs.
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's purpose: 'Get today's menu with AI analysis instructions for daily planning.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('today's menu'), and adds value with 'AI analysis instructions for daily planning.' However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_current_day_menu' or 'get_current_week_menu,' which prevents a score of 5.
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 context through 'today's menu' and 'daily planning,' suggesting it's for current-day tasks. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_current_day_menu' (which might lack AI analysis) or 'plan_weekly_menu' (for longer-term planning). No exclusions or clear alternatives are stated, so the guidance is only implied.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool retrieves date/time information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns local or UTC time, format, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
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 (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete enough for basic understanding. However, with no annotations and an output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., time format), but it's adequate for this low-complexity tool.
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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for this dimension.
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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current date and time context'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools (which are all menu-related), though this isn't necessary since the tool serves a distinct function unrelated to menus.
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 context ('current date and time context') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. Given the sibling tools are menu-related, this tool likely serves a different purpose, but no explicit guidance is provided.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![tekuila-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mtpajula/tekuila-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mtpajula/tekuila-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/mtpajula/tekuila-mcp'

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