io.github.smeet666/mcp-recipes

Take a dish and show how each source writes it, side by side. Each source's closest match is read in full, and all of them can be rescaled to the same number of servings so the ingredient lists stand comparison. The answer states what differs and leaves it there: the quantities each asks for, what each measures in, what each yields, and which fields each source publishes at all. No version is ranked above another. Some sources carry reader ratings and some have no author and no rating by nature, so there is no score they share. When only one source answers, the answer says so and shows that one rather than presenting part of a comparison as the whole of it.

Read one recipe in full: its ingredients, its steps, what it yields, and whatever times, rating and nutrition its source publishes. 'id' must come from search_recipes. It names the source, so this reads the right one without guessing; an identifier no source would have minted is refused, because sending it anywhere would answer about the wrong dish. Pass 'servings' to rescale. Quantities land where a kitchen can follow them: an egg stays whole, anything that pours or cuts can halve, a small measurement moves to a smaller unit before it is rounded, and anything unmultipliable is flagged rather than scaled. A page that states no number of servings comes back as published and says so, because dividing by a yield nobody wrote would answer for a number of people the page never claimed. Read 'kind' first. Some sources publish articles gathering other recipes at the same kind of address as a recipe, and such an answer carries 'collection' with the recipes it points at and no 'recipe' at all: there is nothing to cook from that page, and the recipes it lists are read with get_recipe. A part this answer holds nothing for says which of two things happened: the page showed no sign of it, or this server failed to read what the page carries. An empty ingredient list is never evidence that an ingredient is absent from the dish. 'sections' decides what comes back, and 'sections_omitted' names what was left out: a field belonging to an omitted section is empty because nobody asked for it, never because the page states nothing. A field a source does not publish is null, never zero. Credit the source and link the url when you repeat any of it.

Multiply a list of ingredient lines, in French, in English, in Spanish, or in a list holding more than one of them. Give either 'factor', or 'from_servings' and 'to_servings' and the factor is worked out from them. Quantities land where a kitchen can follow them: an egg stays whole because half of one is not something a cook takes out of the shell, while anything that pours, weighs or cuts can halve, a spoonful shrinks into the smaller spoon before it is rounded, and a pinch keeps whatever size a hand gives it while its count is multiplied. Every line comes back with 'scaling': 'scaled' when the arithmetic landed on the exact product, 'rounded' when something had to move for the line to stay usable, 'unscaled' when the line carries nothing to multiply. A rounded line says what it was rounded from and in which direction. No quantity is converted between measuring systems: grams stay grams and cups stay cups, because a conversion changes what the recipe said.

Search every recipe source this server reads, at the same time, for a dish or an ingredient, and get one merged list. Each row carries the id get_recipe takes, and that id names the source it came from, so nothing has to be guessed afterwards. The sources are written in different languages and count their own results differently, so 'per_source' says what each one answered, what its own number means, and names any that failed. A short list is never evidence of what exists. Not every row opens onto a recipe. Some sources file pages about an ingredient beside the recipes using it, and some publish articles that gather recipes; 'per_source' says in each source's own words what one of its rows can be. Only get_recipe tells them apart, and it says what it read off the page. The query goes to each source's own search as free text. There is no filtering: a word naming a diet, a time or a calorie count matches only where that source's index happens to carry it. Ask in a whole sentence if that is the question. These indexes answer the words they are handed, so a sentence is also sent as the words naming the dish and as the dish word alone, and the rows are the union; 'per_source' lists every wording and what it returned. What the question says the recipe must not hold is set aside from those shorter wordings rather than searched for, and named back in the notes: a negation, an allergy stated as one, a diet named in one word, and the number of people at the table. No source filters on any of it, so open a row with get_recipe and read the ingredient list before calling it suitable. A condition is read with the food on whichever side of it the sentence put one, so 'allergique aux noix' and 'peanut allergy' both name the nut. Where a sentence puts a food on neither side, the notes say a condition was stated and that its food was not read, because naming the wrong word would hide a dish and search for the food being avoided at once. Rows are interleaved one source at a time rath…