list_v2_mealsList detailed meal records with component IDs, display metadata, revision numbers, and scanner or recipe provenance. Filter by date using the optional since parameter.
List detailed meal records with stable component identifiers, display metadata, revision numbers, and scanner or recipe provenance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field categories but omits pagination behavior, filtering semantics, and any auth or rate-limit context.
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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. Every phrase contributes to identifying the resource and returned fields.
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?
The description explains the kind of detailed records returned, which helps because there is no output schema. However, it leaves the "since" filter and pagination behavior unexplained, so it is only minimally complete for invocation.
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 only parameter, "since", is not mentioned or explained in the description. With one optional undocumented parameter, the description does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 uses a specific verb ("List") and resource ("detailed meal records") and enumerates the kinds of fields returned, so the agent can tell it is a detailed read operation. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling list_meals tool, so sibling differentiation is inferred 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_meals, nor any condition for using it. The agent must infer usage from the word "detailed" and the field list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.