Replace multiple recipes in Mealie with complete updated data in one request.
Update Many — Recipe: CRUD. Replace (full update) recipe. [PUT /api/recipes] Keywords: recipe_crud_update_many, recipe crud update many, update recipe, replace recipe, edit recipe, modify recipe, save recipe, write recipe, recipe, recipes, recipe crud, update, replace, edit, modify, save, write, put, mealie.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It says 'Replace (full update)' which hints at destructive replacement semantics, but never states that unspecified fields are wiped, whether this is a batch endpoint, what happens on partial failure, or required auth. For a bulk mutation tool this is a significant gap.
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 core sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the trailing keyword list ('Keywords: recipe_crud_update_many, recipe crud update many, ... mealie.') is pure noise padding for search, not for an agent.
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?
A bulk PUT replacement tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no explanation of replacement semantics or array handling. The agent cannot know whether this overwrites whole recipe records or how failures are handled.
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 there is one top-level 'body' array param, but the schema defines the rich Recipe-Input structure. The description adds nothing about the body shape or the array-of-recipes semantics, though with only one param the baseline compensates somewhat.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: 'Replace (full update) recipe' with HTTP method PUT. Distinguishes full replace from partial update, but the sibling tools include recipe_crud_update_one and patch_many which it does not address to differentiate bulk vs single.
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?
No guidance on when to use this bulk replace endpoint vs recipe_crud_update_one, patch_many, or patch_one. The keyword soup implies synonyms but never states conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.