mealie-mcp

get_meal_plan

Retrieve meal plans for a specified date range, including each recipe’s Mealie page URL for exact linking. Use it to review scheduled meals and reference recipes.

Instructions

Get the meal plan for a date range. Each recipe includes a url linking to its Mealie page; quote it exactly when linking.

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": {
      "start_date": "<start_date>",
      "end_date": "<end_date>"
    },
    "name": "get_meal_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`end_date`	Yes	Date in YYYY-MM-DD format
`start_date`	Yes	Date in YYYY-MM-DD format

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real behavioral detail — each returned recipe carries a `url` to its Mealie page and that url must be quoted exactly — but says nothing about read-only safety, whether the date range is inclusive, pagination, or what an empty range 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed immediately by the one non-obvious output detail. There is no filler or restatement of the schema.

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 simple two-parameter read tool this covers the essentials and adds a return-value hint, but with no output schema the description should say more about the shape of the response (meal entries, dates, recipes) and boundary behavior of the range.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters document the YYYY-MM-DD format, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description only restates 'date range' without adding inclusive/exclusive boundary semantics or range-size limits, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource with a clear scope ('get the meal plan for a date range'), which separates it from the recipe-centric siblings like get_recipe and search_recipes. It stops short of explicitly naming how it differs from the meal-plan mutation siblings add_to_meal_plan/remove_from_meal_plan.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by the purpose: fetch plans for a date range rather than modifying them. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over search_recipes or get_recipe, and no mention of prerequisites or how to discover the meal plan otherwise.

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

Deploy Server