Create a new food item in Mealie with a required name and optional details such as aliases, label, plural name, and description.
Create One — Recipes: Foods. Create food. [POST /api/foods] Keywords: recipes_foods_create_one, recipes foods create one, create food, add food, new food, make food, write food, food, foods, recipes foods, create, add, new, make, write, post, 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 the full burden. It is a mutation tool (POST), but no details are given about permissions, side effects, or what happens on success. The description is essentially just the operation name plus keywords, leaving behavioral traits undisclosed.
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 bloated with a long keyword list that does not add meaning. The core message 'Create food' is clear and front-loaded but followed by redundant keywords. It is not appropriately sized for the information conveyed.
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?
Given the complexity of the nested body object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain required fields, expected behavior, or any nuances of creating a food item. The description does not compensate for the lack of structured documentation.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter semantics. The only parameter is 'body', a nested object with many fields, and the description does not explain any of them. Baseline for low coverage is 3, but with a complex nested body object that is completely undocumented, this may be a 2; however, given the single parameter and the schema itself defining required fields, 3 is acceptable.
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: 'Create food', with the HTTP endpoint POST /api/foods. It does distinguish itself from sibling read/update/delete food tools by the 'create' verb. However, it's somewhat buried under keyword spam and doesn't differentiate from create_many or seed_foods explicitly.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description simply says to create a food, with no mention of alternatives like recipes_foods_update_one or create_many. The keyword list does not constitute usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.