Skip to main content
Glama
2fst4u

mealie-mcp

by 2fst4u
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

parse_ingredient

Convert raw recipe ingredient text into a structured ingredient using Mealie's parser, with selectable nlp, brute, or openai modes.

Instructions

Parse Ingredient — Recipe: Ingredient Parser. Create ingredient. [POST /api/parser/ingredient] Keywords: parse_ingredient, parse ingredient, create ingredient, add ingredient, new ingredient, make ingredient, write ingredient, ingredient, recipe ingredient parser, parser, create, add, new, make, write, post, mealie.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.11

TDQS

D1.8/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails: it never clarifies that this parses an ingredient string into structured components rather than persisting anything, nor mentions return shape or the parser-mode behavior. "Create ingredient" actively misleads about what the POST does.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It front-loads the tool name, but roughly two-thirds of the text is a keyword dump that adds no informational value. The signal-to-noise ratio is poor.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage leave the description to explain everything, and it explains nothing an agent needs to call this correctly. It is not complete enough for even a single-parameter tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds nothing about the required `ingredient` string format or the `parser` enum (nlp/brute/openai) and its default. The agent gets no help understanding the one meaningful parameter it can set.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a verb and resource ("Parse Ingredient", "Ingredient Parser"), so the core operation is identifiable. However it also says "Create ingredient," which muddies whether this creates a persistent record or just parses a string, and it gives no differentiation from the sibling parse_ingredients.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this single-ingredient parser versus the sibling parse_ingredients or the recipe-parsing tools. The keyword list ("add ingredient, new ingredient, make ingredient...") is search bait, not usage guidance.

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