mcp-mealie

update_recipe

Update a recipe's details by patching only the provided fields. Specify the recipe slug and optionally modify name, description, yield, times, or source URL.

Instructions

Patch a recipe. Only non-empty fields are sent.

Note: rating is per-user in Mealie 2.x+ and is not exposed here. Set it via the Mealie UI (or a future dedicated tool) against POST /api/users/{user_id}/ratings/{slug}.

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>"
    },
    "name": "update_recipe"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes
`name`	No
`description`	No
`recipe_yield`	No
`prep_time`	No
`perform_time`	No
`total_time`	No
`org_url`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Jun 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Only non-empty fields are sent.' This adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not cover idempotence, error conditions, or what happens with omitted fields.

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 very concise, with two sentences and a note. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every part earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite being concise, the description lacks completeness. It does not describe output, errors, or prerequisites. Given the tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, more detail is needed for an agent to use it effectively.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only states 'Only non-empty fields are sent' and mentions rating exclusion, but does not explain individual parameters like name, description, times, etc. This is insufficient for an 8-parameter tool.

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 'Patch a recipe' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_recipe and delete_recipe. The note about rating not being exposed further clarifies scope.

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 explicitly notes that rating is not available via this tool, directing the agent to use the UI or a future tool. This provides clear context on what not to use this for, though it lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool names.

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

Deploy Server