Nutriscan MCP connector

usda_food_search

Read-only

Search USDA FoodData Central for generic or branded foods without a barcode to retrieve fdcId, description, data type, and key nutrients per 100 g, including sodium.

Instructions

Search USDA FoodData Central for generic or branded foods (no barcode required). Returns fdcId, description, data type, and key nutrients per 100 g, including sodium in milligrams. Uses USDA_API_KEY, or the shared demo key (about 30 requests per hour and 50 per day) when that variable is unset. The key is never included in the result.

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": "usda_food_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number, starting at 1.
`query`	Yes	Food name to search for. Example: cheddar cheese.
`data_type`	No	Limit to one FoodData Central dataset. Omit to search all.
`page_size`	No	Results per page (default 10, max 25).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/destructive/openWorld, and the description adds real substance on top: the returned fields, that nutrients are normalized per 100 g with sodium in milligrams, the USDA_API_KEY requirement, the shared demo-key fallback with concrete limits (about 30/hour, 50/day), and the assurance that the key is never echoed in results. That is unusually complete behavioral disclosure for a read-only search 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 purpose and the barcode distinction are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by return shape, then auth and quota. Four sentences with almost no redundancy; the rate-limit figures are dense but earn their place by letting the agent budget calls.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract itself and does so by listing fdcId, description, data type, and key nutrients with units. Auth and quota are covered. It does not address pagination behavior or what happens when the demo quota is exhausted, which are minor gaps for a four-parameter search 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 every parameter is already documented, and the description adds essentially no parameter-level detail beyond implying the generic-vs-branded distinction that maps to the data_type enum. It spends its words on return semantics and auth instead, which is reasonable but leaves this dimension at the baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Search USDA FoodData Central") and scopes it to "generic or branded foods (no barcode required)," which implicitly separates it from barcode_lookup and product_search. It stops short of naming any sibling outright, so an agent must infer the routing rather than read it.

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 parenthetical "no barcode required" hints at when this tool is the right choice versus barcode_lookup, but the alternative is never named and no explicit when-not condition is given. Rate-limit context for the demo key is useful for planning calls, yet it is operational guidance rather than tool-selection guidance.

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

Deploy Server