mcp-mealie

update_unit

Update a unit's name, abbreviation, and description in Mealie using its unit ID.

Instructions

Patch a unit.

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": {
      "unit_id": "<unit_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_unit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`unit_id`	Yes
`name`	No
`plural_name`	No
`abbreviation`	No
`plural_abbreviation`	No
`description`	No
`fraction`	No
`use_abbreviation`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Jun 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, auth requirements, or side effects. 'Patch a unit.' only implies a partial update but does not explain the behavior (e.g., whether it fully replaces or merges fields, what happens on missing optional fields, or any error conditions).

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?

The description is extremely short (3 words), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks essential information and does not front-load critical details. Each word is present but insufficient.

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's complexity (8 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It provides no information about return values, error handling, or required permissions. The agent cannot reliably use this tool based solely on the description.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0% and 8 parameters (1 required), the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. It does not clarify constraints, defaults, or relationships between fields like 'name' and 'plural_name'. The agent receives no additional help for invoking the tool correctly.

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 unit.' clearly indicates the action (patch/update) and the resource (unit). It distinguishes the basic purpose from tools like 'create_unit' or 'delete_unit', but does not differentiate among sibling update tools like 'update_category' or 'update_food', which all use similar verbs. The verb 'patch' suggests partial update, adding some nuance.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create_unit', 'delete_unit', or other update tools. There are no mentions of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server