Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Nutriscan MCP connector

Nutriscan MCP connector

by si-essence
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

product_search

Read-only

Search Open Food Facts by food name to find product matches with barcode, brand, quantity, Nutri-Score, and NOVA group, with optional brand or country filters.

Instructions

Search Open Food Facts by food name (full text). Returns a short page of matches with barcode, name, brand, quantity, Nutri-Score, and NOVA group. Optional brand and country filters. Does not return nutrient tables; call barcode_lookup for those. Limited to 10 searches per minute.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "product_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number, starting at 1.
brandNoOptional brand filter, matched as a substring. Example: Ferrero.
queryYesFood name to search for, at least 2 characters. Example: oat milk.
countryNoOptional country filter, matched as a substring of the Open Food Facts country name. Example: France.
page_sizeNoResults per page (default 10, max 20).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, open-world profile, so the description earns credit for adding what annotations cannot: a hard rate limit (10/min), the shape of the response ("a short page of matches"), and the explicit exclusion of nutrient tables. It stops short of describing error behavior or what an empty result looks like, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct payload: purpose and return set first, then the negative/routing rule, then the rate limit. No filler and no restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does by listing the exact returned fields plus what is omitted. Combined with the rate limit and pagination mention, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 query, brand, country, page, and page_size are already fully documented with examples and bounds. The description restates only that brand and country are optional filters and that results are paged, adding no syntax or edge-case meaning 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search Open Food Facts by food name (full text)") and enumerates exactly what comes back (barcode, name, brand, quantity, Nutri-Score, NOVA group). It also distinguishes itself from a sibling by explicitly declaring what it does NOT return and naming barcode_lookup as the tool for that data.

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?

Gives a concrete routing rule: for nutrient tables, use barcode_lookup instead, and it discloses the 10 searches/minute cap so the agent knows not to hammer it. It does not explain when to prefer this over usda_food_search, which searches a different database, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete for the full sibling set.

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