Authenticate with Mealie by submitting username and password to create an API access token for subsequent requests.
Get Token — Users: Authentication. Create token. [POST /api/auth/token] Keywords: get_token, get token, create token, add token, new token, make token, write token, token, users authentication, auth, create, add, new, make, write, post, mealie.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: only that it is a POST to /api/auth/token. It omits that it authenticates supplied credentials, what it returns (a token), or any auth/rate-limit behavior. The synonym spam adds no behavioral information.
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 first sentence is front-loaded, but it is immediately buried under a long comma-separated keyword dump with heavy duplication ('get token, create token, add token, new token, make token, write token'). None of those keywords earn their 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?
For an authentication endpoint with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented nested body, the definition is far too thin — an agent cannot tell what credentials are required or what the call produces.
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 0%, and the single body object holds password, username, and remember_me with no descriptions anywhere. The description says nothing about these parameters — no credential format, no explanation of remember_me — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 two informative fragments ('Get Token' and 'Create token') actually conflict about whether this retrieves or creates, and neither distinguishes it from siblings like refresh_token, oauth_login, create_api_token, or logout. Most of the text is keyword-synonym spam ('add token, new token, make token, write token') that restates the name rather than clarifying what the endpoint does.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent to pick this login-credential flow over refresh_token, oauth_login, or create_api_token, and no prerequisite (e.g., needing valid username/password) is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.