mcp-mealie

set_recipe_notes

Replace a recipe's existing notes with a custom set of titled notes using a JSON array. Each note can have an optional title and required text.

Instructions

Replace a recipe's notes with the given JSON array.

notes_json is a JSON array of {title, text} objects. title is optional; text is required. Example: [{"title": "Tip", "text": "Toast the spices first."}].

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>",
      "notes_json": "<notes_json>"
    },
    "name": "set_recipe_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes
`notes_json`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Jun 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description clearly states the operation is a replacement ('Replace'), indicating destructive behavior. With no annotations, it provides additional context on the expected format and examples, but could mention side effects or permissions.

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, with two short paragraphs that front-load the core action and then explain the parameter format. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary 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 simple set operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage and parameter format. It does not mention return values or confirmation, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema lacks parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by detailing the structure of `notes_json` with an example, adding significant meaning. `slug` is not explained, but its purpose is inferable from the tool name.

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 ('Replace') and the resource ('a recipe's notes with the given JSON array'). It also specifies the input format, distinguishing it from siblings like set_recipe_ingredients or update_recipe.

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?

The description implies use for setting notes but does not provide explicit context on when to use this tool vs alternatives like update_recipe. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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

Deploy Server