mealie-mcp

create_recipe_from_url

Scrape and import a recipe from a URL into Mealie; if scraping fails, create a stub recipe linked to that URL so it can be completed later.

Instructions

Scrape and import a recipe from a URL.

If the site can't be scraped, creates a stub recipe linking to the URL.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "create_recipe_from_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	The URL of the recipe to import
`name`	No	Name to use if scraping fails
`description`	No	Description to use if scraping fails

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It does disclose a valuable non-obvious trait: on scrape failure it still writes a stub recipe rather than erroring out. It does not say whether this mutates existing data on duplicate URLs, what permissions are needed, or what the call returns.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the primary behavior is front-loaded ahead of the fallback edge case. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the happy path and the failure fallback but leaves the agent without the return value (e.g., the created recipe's ID) or duplicate-handling behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps for a mutation tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, including the note that name and description are only used when scraping fails, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing beyond that baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Scrape and import') and resource ('a recipe from a URL'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling create_recipe, which is the obvious confusion point for an agent choosing between URL-based and manual creation.

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 context of use is clear: import a recipe directly from a URL, with a stated fallback path if scraping fails. It stops short of explicit exclusion criteria (e.g., when to prefer create_recipe or how duplicate URLs are handled), so it lands at clear-context rather than full routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server