Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mealie MCP Server

Mealie MCP Server

by bitmonster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

mealie_duplicate_recipe

Duplicate an existing recipe by its slug or ID, optionally providing a new name for the copy.

Instructions

Duplicate a recipe, optionally assigning a new name.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "slug_or_id": "<slug_or_id>"
    },
    "name": "mealie_duplicate_recipe"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
new_nameNo
slug_or_idYes
confirmed_by_userNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action and does not disclose the meaning of the 'confirmed_by_user' parameter, whether duplication creates a new recipe or modifies the original, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action. It contains no extraneous content and is easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the full behavior, the significance of 'confirmed_by_user', or how the duplication is performed. This would leave an agent uncertain about the tool's side effects and prerequisites.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'new_name' by stating it is optional and assigns a new name, but it leaves 'slug_or_id' and 'confirmed_by_user' unexplained. The tool name hints at slug_or_id's role, but the description fails to clarify the confirmation parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action 'Duplicate a recipe' with a specific resource and an optional parameter. It distinguishes from all sibling tools, as no other tool mentions duplication. The verb 'Duplicate' is specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create_recipe_from_url or create_recipe_from_text. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context in which duplication is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools