mealie-agent-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Parse Ingredients

parse_ingredients

Read-only

Converts free-text ingredient lines into structured quantity, unit, food, and note fields so you can preview what recipe creation or updates will store.

Instructions

Parse free-text ingredient lines into quantity, unit, food and note (Mealie's parser).

Does not change anything. Useful to preview what create_recipe/update_recipe will store.

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": {
      "ingredients": "<ingredients>"
    },
    "name": "parse_ingredients"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ingredients`	Yes	Ingredient lines, e.g. ['2 cups flour'].

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing that the parser is Mealie's own and therefore the parse result is exactly what the write tools will persist, which no annotation conveys.

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, the core action and output shape front-loaded, followed by the practical sales pitch. No filler and nothing redundant between the sentences.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover safety. For a single-parameter read tool, everything an agent needs to call it and interpret the result is present.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already carries a concrete example ('2 cups flour') plus maxItems of 100. The description only restates that input is free text and enumerates output fields rather than adding input-format nuance, so this is baseline territory.

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?

States a specific verb (parse) and resource (free-text ingredient lines) and names the exact output decomposition: quantity, unit, food and note. It also anchors the behavior to Mealie's own parser, so an agent knows the output matches what create_recipe/update_recipe would store.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly frames the use case as a preview before create_recipe/update_recipe and rules out side effects ('Does not change anything'). It stops short of naming explicit when-not conditions, but the intended workflow is unambiguous.

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