Delete a shared recipe by UUID to remove it from Mealie's shared recipes list.
Delete One — Shared: Recipes. Delete recipe. [DELETE /api/shared/recipes/{item_id}] Keywords: shared_recipes_delete_one, shared recipes delete one, delete recipe, remove recipe, destroy recipe, write recipe, recipe, recipes, shared recipes, shared, 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals it is a destructive DELETE operation via the endpoint, but says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, ownership scoping, or side effects — a significant gap for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 statement and endpoint are front-loaded and clear, but the long 'Keywords:' synonym list is padding that dilutes the definition without adding decision-relevant information.
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, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is too thin: it omits authorization needs, reversibility, and error/return behavior, leaving the agent without enough to invoke it 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?
One parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The endpoint template '{item_id}' indicates item_id is a path parameter, but the description adds no meaning (e.g., what a shared recipe item_id is or where to obtain it) beyond the schema's uuid4 format.
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 ('Delete recipe') and scopes it to shared recipes ('Shared: Recipes'), plus the DELETE endpoint confirms the resource path. However, it never distinguishes itself from the many other delete tools (recipe_crud_delete_one, bulk_delete_recipes, delete_many), so the 'shared' qualifier carries the differentiation implicitly rather than 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 guidance on when to use this versus recipe_crud_delete_one or bulk_delete_recipes. The only additions are a keyword synonym dump ('remove recipe, destroy recipe, write recipe'), which aids search but gives no usage context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.