mealie-mcp

remove_from_meal_plan

Removes a specified meal plan entry by its plan entry ID, allowing you to correct or adjust scheduled meals without affecting the recipe.

Instructions

Remove a single entry from the meal plan.

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": {
      "plan_entry_id": "<plan_entry_id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_from_meal_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`plan_entry_id`	Yes	Meal plan entry ID (from get_meal_plan), not the recipe ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive mutation. It never states whether removal is permanent, what happens if the entry ID does not exist, whether ownership or permissions are required, or what the response confirms — all of which an agent needs before deleting data.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with zero redundant wording; the action and target are immediately clear. Its brevity borders on under-specification rather than verbosity, but structurally nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. However, for a destructive one-parameter tool with no annotations, the description leaves out permanence and failure behavior, which are the remaining gaps an agent would want covered.

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 the schema itself already explains the critical distinction that plan_entry_id comes from get_meal_plan and is not a recipe ID. The description adds no further meaning beyond "single entry," so baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Remove a single entry from the meal plan" states a specific verb (remove) and resource (meal plan entry), and the word "single" scopes the operation to one entry at a time. It is clearly distinct from add_to_meal_plan and get_meal_plan by verb, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_meal_plan for locating an entry first. The usage is only inferable from the tool name and the word "Remove."

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

Deploy Server