create_parser_ingredientsParse raw ingredient strings into structured data for Mealie. Choose NLP, brute force, or OpenAI parser and set language preferences for accurate results.
Parse Ingredients
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| parser | No | ||
| ingredients | Yes | ||
| accept-language | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.20.1Does 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. 'Parse Ingredients' says nothing about side effects, whether this creates persistent records, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response behavior—especially ambiguous given the 'create_' prefix.
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?
Three words is not conciseness but under-specification. The phrase 'Parse Ingredients' adds almost no information beyond the tool name and does not earn its place in a useful tool 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?
Even with an output schema present, this definition is inadequate for a 3-parameter tool with no annotations. An agent cannot determine what input format is expected, what parser selection implies, or what the output represents, making successful invocation largely a matter of luck.
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 provides no information about the 'parser' enum choices (nlp/brute/openai), the required 'ingredients' array, or the 'accept-language' parameter. The agent must rely entirely on parameter names and raw enum literals.
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?
The description 'Parse Ingredients' is a phrase-level restatement of the tool's name and title; it names the object but not the purpose or result. It also fails to distinguish this from the close sibling 'create_parser_ingredient' (singular), so an agent cannot tell which variant to choose.
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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_parser_ingredient or the other recipe parsing tools. The agent is left to infer usage from the plural/singular naming difference, which is not explained anywhere.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.