Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-mealie

mcp-mealie

by obrien-matthew
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

update_mealplan_rule

Update a meal plan rule by modifying its day, entry type, or filter. Adjust meal scheduling with this targeted patch.

Instructions

Patch a meal-plan rule.

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": {
      "rule_id": "<rule_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_mealplan_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rule_idYes
dayNo
entry_typeNo
query_filter_stringNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Patch' implies modification, but the description does not state side effects (e.g., whether other fields are affected), idempotency, error behavior for invalid rule_id, or required permissions. Minimal transparency.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

At five words, the description is extremely concise but under-specified. It lacks critical context that would make it helpful, so brevity comes at the cost of completeness and clarity.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter details, usage context, or any constraints. A user would have to guess how to use it correctly.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the four parameters (rule_id, day, entry_type, query_filter_string). Parameter names alone are insufficient to convey expected values, formats, or semantics (e.g., what is 'entry_type'? Is 'day' a date or day-of-week?). The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 rule' clearly identifies the action (patch/partial update) and the resource (meal-plan rule), distinguishing it from create, delete, get, and list sibling tools. It could be more explicit about what constitutes a 'rule' in meal-plan context, but overall purpose is clear.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_mealplan_rule or update_mealplan. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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