mealie-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Remove a meal plan entry

delete_mealplan_entry

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a specific meal plan entry without altering the recipe. Requires a two-step confirmation: call once to get a token, then confirm with that token.

Instructions

Removes one entry from the meal plan. The recipe itself is not touched. Requires confirmation: call once to receive a token, then again with that token.

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": {
      "entry_id": "<entry_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_mealplan_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entry_id`	Yes	Plan entry id from list_mealplans — an integer, not a UUID
`confirm_token`	No	Confirmation token from a previous call of this tool with the same arguments. Omit on the first call.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`truncated`	No	Present only when entries were dropped to fit the budget.
`removed_entry_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.4.0Sep 8, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

addedInput schema / properties / confirm_token / maxLength
```
Added value: +512
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "removed_entry_id": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "truncated": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Present only when entries were dropped to fit the budget.",
+      "properties": {
+        "follow_up": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "reason": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "reason",
+        "follow_up"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "removed_entry_id"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.1Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it clarifies the scope (only the entry, not the recipe) and the non-obvious confirmation token requirement. This goes beyond the annotations, which do not mention the two-step flow. No contradictions found.

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?

The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. The scope clarification and confirmation requirement are efficiently conveyed without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose and critical usage detail.

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?

For a destructive operation with a two-step confirmation, the description covers the essential requirements: the action, the scope (entry vs. recipe), and the confirmation process. It does not mention error handling for invalid tokens or timeout behavior, but these are minor for an agent to infer. The output schema is present (though not shown), so return-value documentation is not the description's responsibility. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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%, with both parameters already well-described in the input schema. The description reinforces the confirmation flow but adds little new information about parameter meaning. It mentions the token requirement but the schema already states 'Omit on the first call.' Thus, the description provides marginal value over the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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?

The description clearly states the action (removes), the resource (one entry from the meal plan), and explicitly distinguishes it from deleting the recipe itself ('The recipe itself is not touched'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_recipe. The title and description align, providing unambiguous purpose.

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?

The description explains the required two-step confirmation process ('call once to receive a token, then again with that token'), which is essential for correct usage. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not scenarios, but the context (sibling tools) makes it clear this is the only tool for deleting meal plan entries. The guidance is sufficient but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

Deploy Server