Skip to main content
Glama

wendys_store_menu

Read-only

Wendy's restaurant full priced/offered menu by numeric store id: real local pricing (including full combo bundle prices) and any store-specific promotional items, rather than the generic national-menu listing.

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": {
      "store_id": "<store_id>"
    },
    "name": "wendys_store_menu"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
store_idYesRequired. Numeric store id, e.g. from /wendys/nearby's stores[].store_id or /wendys/restaurant's store_id.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesThe tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds useful content-level context (local pricing, combo bundle prices, store-specific promotional items) that annotations cannot express.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and store id, then qualifies the pricing/promo scope and the contrast with the national listing; no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return structure needn't be described, and annotations cover safety; the description supplies the key differentiator (store-local pricing vs national menu). It could be slightly more complete by naming the sibling to use for the national listing.

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% and the single store_id parameter is fully documented with sourcing examples from /wendys/nearby and /wendys/restaurant; the description only restates 'numeric store id' without adding format or validation detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource (fetch a store's full menu) keyed on store id, and explicitly contrasts it with the 'generic national-menu listing' so an agent can separate it from wendys_menu/wendys_categories without opening schemas.

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?

Implies the right context (need real local pricing or store-specific promos) and implicitly routes away from the national menu listing, but it never names the alternative tool (wendys_menu) or states when-not to use it, leaving that inference to the agent.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.