Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-mealie

mcp-mealie

by obrien-matthew
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

update_mealplan

Modify a meal plan entry by ID. Only specified fields (date, type, title, text, recipe ID) are updated.

Instructions

Patch a meal-plan entry. Only non-empty fields are sent.

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": {
      "mealplan_id": "<mealplan_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_mealplan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mealplan_idYes
dateNo
entry_typeNo
titleNo
textNo
recipe_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses that only non-empty fields are sent, which is a key behavior beyond the schema. However, without annotations, it fails to mention side effects, authentication needs, or error states (e.g., what happens if mealplan_id does not exist).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the action and key behavior, but could include a bit more detail without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (a patch operation) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic intent, but missing details like return value or validation behavior limit its utility for an agent.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description only broadly mentions 'non-empty fields'. It does not elaborate on individual parameters like date, entry_type, or recipe_id, leaving their meaning inferred from names. This is insufficient for 6 parameters.

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 'Patch a meal-plan entry' clearly states the verb (patch) and resource (meal-plan entry). It also adds behavioral detail about non-empty fields, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_mealplan_rule or create_mealplan.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_mealplan for a new entry, delete_mealplan to remove). The description implies partial updates but lacks usage boundaries or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools