Create a recipe in Mealie from structured fields like ingredients and instructions instead of URL imports, so you can add recipes directly for meal planning.
Create a recipe in Mealie using structured fields, not URL import.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| tags | No | ||
| source_url | No | ||
| total_time | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| ingredients | No | ||
| instructions | No | ||
| recipe_yield | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only says a recipe is created. It says nothing about required permissions/auth, duplicate-name behavior, which fields are ignored, or whether defaults are applied — all material for a mutation tool with eight inputs.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the disambiguating clause is attached directly to the action statement.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool has no nested objects. But with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, the definition leaves the agent without any of the field-level or behavioral context needed to call an 8-parameter create tool 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 description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: no parameter is named or explained beyond the vague phrase 'structured fields'. Format expectations for total_time, ingredients, or instructions — none of which are documented in the schema — are left entirely unstated.
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 (create a recipe) plus the mechanism (structured fields), and explicitly contrasts with URL import, which maps onto the import_recipe sibling. An agent can distinguish it from import_recipe and update_recipe without opening any schema.
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?
'not URL import' implicitly routes URL-based creation to import_recipe, giving a clear selection rule. It does not name the sibling explicitly or state other exclusions (e.g., when to use update_recipe instead), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.