Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mealie-mcp

mealie-mcp

by proffalken
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

update_recipe

Modify an existing recipe by changing only the fields you provide, including name, notes, source URL, ingredients, or instructions. Use the recipe ID or slug to target the update.

Instructions

Update an existing recipe. Only the fields you give are changed.

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": {
      "recipe_id": "<recipe_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_recipe"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew name
notesNoReplaces the notes; empty string clears them
recipe_idYesThe recipe slug or ID
source_urlNoOriginal recipe URL
descriptionNoNew description
ingredientsNoReplaces ALL ingredients, one per string
instructionsNoReplaces ALL method steps, in order, one per string

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Only the fields you give are changed' is a genuinely useful disclosure of partial-update semantics, but the description says nothing about permissions, what happens when recipe_id does not exist, or that supplying ingredients/instructions wholesale replaces existing content (the schema alone carries that warning).

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 short sentences with the mutation semantics front-loaded and zero redundant wording. Every sentence contributes information the agent needs before calling.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate because the schema is fully documented. It leaves gaps around failure modes (nonexistent recipe_id), whether recipe_id accepts a slug versus an ID at call time, and what the response returns after the update.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns an increment by clarifying the meaning of the nullable defaults: omitted fields are left untouched, which the schema's bare 'default: null' does not make obvious and which matters given the destructive replace semantics of ingredients and instructions.

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 and resource ('Update an existing recipe') and the word 'existing' implicitly separates it from create_recipe. It does not explicitly name siblings such as create_recipe or get_recipe, so the differentiation is left to inference rather than spelled out.

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 implied by 'Update an existing recipe' — the agent can infer this is for modifying records that already exist, not for creating them. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives like create_recipe for new entries.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools