update_foods_by_itemUpdate a food item's name, description, aliases, and substitutions in Mealie by specifying its item ID.
Update One
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| extras | No | ||
| aliases | No | ||
| item_id | Yes | ||
| labelId | No | ||
| pluralName | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| substitutions | No | ||
| accept-language | No | ||
| householdsWithIngredientFood | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.26.0Input schema / properties / substitutionsAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "note": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "substituteFoodId": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "format": "uuid",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}v3.20.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update One' discloses nothing about mutation semantics, required permissions, idempotency, partial updates, or consequences. This is essentially a placeholder.
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 text is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It does not front-load any useful information and every meaningful detail is missing.
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 tool with 11 parameters, two required fields, and no annotations, this description is completely inadequate. Even though an output schema exists, the agent cannot correctly select or invoke this tool based on 'Update One'.
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 adds no meaning to any of the 11 parameters. The schema only shows types and formats; the agent has no idea how item_id, name, extras, aliases, substitutions, or the other fields are intended to be used.
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 is 'Update One', which does not specify what resource is updated, what operation is performed, or how it differs from the many sibling update tools. It is so vague that an agent cannot determine what this tool does beyond the name.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_foods_merge, delete_foods_by_item, or get_foods_by_item. The description provides no context, preconditions, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.