Canadian grocery flyer deals and recipes by item, store, postal code, cuisine, or diet. No auth.
Search current Canadian grocery flyer deals by item name or store.
Covers FreshCo, Costco, Walmart, Food Basics, and more. All returned deals are currently valid and from the latest successful flyer fetch per store.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results | |
| query | No | Item name to search deals for (e.g. paneer, milk, rice) | |
| store | No | Filter by store name (e.g. FreshCo, Costco) | |
| postal_code | No | Canadian postal code for location-aware deals (e.g. L4B1C3) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: returned deals are guaranteed to be currently valid and are sourced from the latest successful flyer fetch per store. This sets expectations about result freshness and coverage.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the core search action, then adds store coverage and freshness guarantees. Every sentence contributes practical information with no filler or repetition of the title.
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?
The description, combined with the exhaustive input schema and available readOnly annotations, supports correct invocation well. It lacks explicit guidance on result ordering or empty-query behavior, but the output schema and the stated valid-date guarantee cover most agent needs.
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%, so every parameter already has descriptions and examples. The tool description reinforces the query and store concepts but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description states a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'Search current Canadian grocery flyer deals by item name or store.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recipe and search_meals, since they target recipes/meals rather than flyer deals.
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?
The description communicates a clear usage context: use this for current Canadian grocery flyer deals, searchable by item, store, and postal code. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the subject matter is clearly different from the siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get full recipe details for a specific meal, including scaled ingredients and steps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meal_id | Yes | Meal ID from search_meals (UUID) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds a useful statement about returning scaled ingredients and steps, which clarifies what the operation yields. No contradiction exists between description and annotations.
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?
The description is one focused sentence that says exactly what the tool does and what it returns. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes no filler or repetition. Every part earns its place.
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?
This is a simple, single-parameter read-only tool with a rich output schema, so the description does not need much more. The parameter is fully documented in the schema and the purpose/return content is clearly stated. The agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool correctly.
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 description coverage is 100% and the meal_id parameter is already documented well as 'Meal ID from search_meals (UUID).' The description references the meal concept but adds no significant parameter details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get full recipe details for a specific meal.' It also specifies the content that distinguishes this from other tools — 'scaled ingredients and steps.' This clearly separates it from search_meals and get_flyer_deals.
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?
The description implies this is for fetching details for one specific meal rather than searching or browsing. The input schema reinforces the intended flow by requiring a meal_id from search_meals. It could be stronger with an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search NoshUp's recipe catalogue by cuisine, dietary preference, ingredient, or meal type.
The query matches both meal names and recipe ingredients.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results | |
| query | No | Dish name, cuisine type, or ingredient to search for | |
| cuisine | No | Filter by cuisine | |
| dietary | No | Dietary constraints (vegetarian, vegan, gluten_free, nut_allergy) | |
| meal_type | No | Filter by meal type |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail that the query matches both meal names and recipe ingredients, but it does not disclose result ordering, pagination behavior, or what happens when no filters are provided.
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?
The description is two concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the additional matching behavior earns its place. Formatting is clean and easy to parse.
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?
The tool is a simple, filterable search with fully documented parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations. The description is adequate for correct invocation. It would be slightly stronger if it explicitly directed users to get_recipe for retrieving a specific meal's full details.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description lists the main filter dimensions, which aligns with the schema, but it does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('NoshUp's recipe catalogue'), and the search dimensions (cuisine, dietary preference, ingredient, meal type). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_recipe and get_flyer_deals by focusing on catalogue-wide search.
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?
The description conveys that this tool is for finding meals by multiple criteria, which gives clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the search-oriented phrasing and sibling names make the intended usage reasonably obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
search_meals1 field changedInput schema / properties / cuisine / enumPrevious value: -[
- "indian",
- "italian",
- "mediterranean",
- "mexican",
- "east_asian",
- "french",
- "generic"
-]New value: +[
+ "indian",
+ "italian",
+ "mediterranean",
+ "mexican",
+ "east_asian",
+ "french",
+ "north_american",
+ "generic"
+]search_meals1 field changedInput schema / properties / cuisine / enumPrevious value: -[
- "indian",
- "italian",
- "mediterranean",
- "mexican",
- "east_asian",
- "french",
- "north_american",
- "generic"
-]New value: +[
+ "indian",
+ "italian",
+ "mediterranean",
+ "mexican",
+ "east_asian",
+ "french",
+ "generic"
+]search_meals1 field changedInput schema / properties / cuisine / enumPrevious value: -[
- "indian",
- "italian",
- "mediterranean",
- "mexican",
- "east_asian",
- "french",
- "generic"
-]New value: +[
+ "indian",
+ "italian",
+ "mediterranean",
+ "mexican",
+ "east_asian",
+ "french",
+ "north_american",
+ "generic"
+]get_flyer_dealsget_recipesearch_mealsClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Grocery meal planning, budgets, and flyer deals for Canadian households. Auth required.
Signed US food & grocery data: Kroger prices, nutrition, allergens, recalls, diet filters.
Danish grocery catalog as MCP tools: live offers across all major chains, stores, EAN lookup, stock.
Spoonacular food API: recipes, nutrition, ingredients, meal plans. Free 150/day.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: retrieving grocery flyer deals, searching for recipes, and fetching full recipe details. There is no overlap between get_flyer_deals and the recipe tools, and search_meals vs get_recipe are clearly search vs retrieval.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: get_flyer_deals, get_recipe, search_meals. The verbs get/search appropriately indicate the action and the nouns target the resource, making the naming predictable and readable.
Three tools is a compact set that covers the core browsing and lookup needs for grocery deals and recipes. It is not overly thin and each tool is useful, though a slightly larger set might include a dedicated store listing or favorite meals feature.
The tools provide a complete read-only workflow: search deals by item/store, search recipes by various criteria, and retrieve full recipe details. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to list all stores or browse all deals without a query, but the essential user journey is covered.