list_foodsFetch a complete list of food items from Mealie, supporting search, page size, sorting, and filters. Use it to browse or manage your food database.
Get All
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| orderBy | No | ||
| perPage | No | ||
| queryFilter | No | ||
| orderDirection | No | ||
| paginationSeed | No | ||
| accept-language | No | ||
| orderByNullPosition | 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior such as read-only nature, pagination, filtering, and auth requirements. 'Get All' reveals none of this; it only hints at retrieval, leaving the endpoint's actual behavior undocumented.
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?
Two words are under-specification rather than conciseness for a 9-parameter endpoint. There is no substantive content to evaluate as front-loaded; even a single sentence defining the resource and parameter behavior would be necessary.
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 list endpoint with 9 optional parameters and no annotations, the description omits nearly everything an agent needs: what is listed, how filters work, pagination semantics, and the relationship to sibling tools. The output schema helps with return shape, but the input side is entirely undocumented.
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 9 parameters, so the description must compensate by explaining page, search, orderBy, queryFilter, paginationSeed, and the others. It says nothing, and the schema only provides types, so an agent cannot determine how to construct a correct call.
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 'Get All' is a near-tautology that adds almost nothing to the tool's name/title. It fails to state the resource ('foods') or the operation's scope and does not differentiate this tool from siblings like get_foods_by_item.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use list_foods versus alternative list/get tools, nor any indication of prerequisites or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage entirely from the naming convention.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.