Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Nutriscan MCP connector

Nutriscan MCP connector

by si-essence
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

barcode_lookup

Read-only

Look up a packaged food by EAN-8, UPC-A, or EAN-13 barcode to retrieve its name, brand, Nutri-Score, NOVA group, allergens, additives, and key nutrients per 100 g.

Instructions

Look up one packaged food on Open Food Facts by barcode (EAN-8, UPC-A, or EAN-13). Returns name, brand, quantity, Nutri-Score, NOVA group, allergens, additives, and key nutrients per 100 g. Use when the user has a barcode. For a name, use product_search.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "barcode": "<barcode>"
    },
    "name": "barcode_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
barcodeYesBarcode printed on the package (EAN-8, UPC-A, or EAN-13). Digits only; spaces and dashes are ignored.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description only needs to add context. It does so by listing the returned fields (name, brand, quantity, Nutri-Score, NOVA group, allergens, additives, nutrients per 100 g), which is essential since no output schema exists. It omits what happens for an unknown barcode or when the upstream open-world lookup fails, which is the one behavioral gap.

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, each earning its place: what it does, what it returns, and how to choose it over the sibling. Purpose and routing are front-loaded with no filler.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, accepted identifier formats, return payload, and sibling routing, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The only missing piece is failure/not-found behavior, which matters for an open-world tool hitting an external database.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already documents that it is digits-only with spaces and dashes ignored. The description's "(EAN-8, UPC-A, or EAN-13)" largely restates the schema's own format list rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("look up one packaged food on Open Food Facts by barcode") and even enumerates the accepted barcode symbologies (EAN-8, UPC-A, EAN-13). It explicitly distinguishes itself from product_search, which is the closest sibling, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives both sides of the routing decision: "Use when the user has a barcode" and "For a name, use product_search." That is an explicit when-to-use plus a named alternative, leaving nothing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools