mealie-agent-mcp

by loidolt

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

List Recipes

list_recipes

Read-only

Browse and sort recipes by newest, name, rating, or last made, with pagination and random ordering for meal ideas.

Instructions

Browse all recipes, sorted. Newest first by default; ratings and last_made descending.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_recipes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`order_by`	No	Sort order. 'random' is handy for meal ideas.	date_added
`per_page`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail about default ordering and descending direction for rating/last_made, but says nothing about result size, pagination behavior, or what happens past the last page.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the default sort behavior is front-loaded where an agent will see it. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

This is a simple read-only list tool with an output schema, so return values need no explanation. The remaining gap is modest: no statement about pagination limits or how many pages exist, but the schema caps per_page at 100 and documents the page parameter.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 33% — only order_by is documented in the schema. The description partially compensates by explaining that results are newest first by default and that rating and last_made sort descending, which is real added meaning, but page and per_page receive no explanation in either place.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Browse all recipes') plus the sort behavior, which clearly separates a full enumeration from the sibling search_recipes. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Browse all recipes' implies the use case (full listing rather than filtered search), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of search_recipes as the alternative for filtered lookups, and no guidance on when to paginate versus use a different tool.

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