Create a new food or ingredient in Mealie with optional aliases, labels, and household associations. Use it to add custom ingredients to your recipe database.
Create One [POST /api/foods]
| 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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It only repeats the endpoint and operation name, offering no information about side effects, permissions, idempotency, or any other behavioral traits. This is a critical 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 description is extremely short (one line) but this brevity sacrifices essential information. It is not effectively front-loaded with value; it merely restates the tool name and endpoint. Conciseness should not replace completeness.
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 input schema (nested object with multiple optional fields), the lack of output schema, and absence of annotations, the description is wholly inadequate. It fails to provide enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly and confidently.
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 coverage is 0%—the description makes no mention of any parameters. The input schema has a complex required body object with many properties, but the description adds no meaning to what the parameters represent or how they relate to the operation. With zero compensation, this is insufficient.
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 'Create One [POST /api/foods]', which together with the tool name indicates creating a food resource. However, it lacks specific verb and resource context, and does not distinguish from sibling tools like recipes_foods_get_all or recipes_foods_update_one. It is minimally adequate but vague.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as recipes_foods_merge_one or other create tools. The description does not specify prerequisites or contexts, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.