Seed the food database for a specific locale by creating food entries through the Mealie API, enabling recipe and meal plan data population.
Seed Foods — Groups: Seeders. Create food. [POST /api/groups/seeders/foods] Keywords: seed_foods, seed foods, create food, add food, new food, make food, write food, food, foods, groups seeders, groups, seeders, 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 reveals only the HTTP verb and path (POST /api/groups/seeders/foods); it says nothing about permissions, whether it requires group-owner/admin rights, whether repeated calls are idempotent or duplicate entries, or what the response returns.
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 action is front-loaded, but roughly two-thirds of the text is keyword stuffing ('seed foods, create food, add food, new food, make food, write food...') that adds no signal and dilutes the useful facts.
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 mutating seed tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required body object. The description omits everything needed to call it correctly, so it is not complete enough for an agent to act on.
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 the description adds no information about the single 'body' parameter. The nested SeederConfig requires a 'locale', but neither schema nor description explains valid values or what locale controls for seeded foods.
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 ('Create food') and scopes it to the Groups/Seeders namespace with the POST path. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'recipes_foods_create_one' (also a food-creation tool), so an agent cannot tell which creation path to pick.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The keyword list is not guidance; it never explains when seeding food data is appropriate versus calling recipes_foods_create_one or seed_labels/seed_units.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.