Delete a unit from the Mealie recipe system by its unique ID, removing it permanently to keep measurement definitions clean.
Delete One — Recipes: Units. Delete unit. [DELETE /api/units/{item_id}] Keywords: recipes_units_delete_one, recipes units delete one, delete unit, remove unit, destroy unit, write unit, unit, units, recipes units, delete, remove, destroy, write, mealie.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes |
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. It confirms a destructive mutation via the DELETE verb but says nothing about required permissions, irreversibility, or what happens to recipes/foods referencing a deleted unit. For a destructive operation 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 first two sentences are appropriately terse and front-loaded, but the trailing 'Keywords:' block is pure SEO stuffing that repeats the tool name and resource many times without adding information, diluting the definition.
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 a destructive delete with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition is too thin. It should at least flag the irreversible nature and any referential side effects, none of which are present.
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%, so the description must compensate. It only reveals via the endpoint template that item_id is a path parameter for the units resource; it adds no format, validity, or meaning beyond the schema's uuid4 type.
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 and resource ('Delete unit') scoped to Recipes: Units, and the endpoint line [DELETE /api/units/{item_id}] confirms the operation. It is clear what the tool does, but it offers no differentiation from the many sibling delete tools beyond the resource noun.
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 versus recipes_units_update_one, recipes_units_merge_one, or any other delete tool. The only 'guidance' is a keyword dump that repeats the name rather than stating context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.