Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

foodpanda_search

Search foodpanda restaurants near any latitude/longitude, filter by cuisine, and get delivery details like fees, ratings, and minimum order amounts.

Instructions

Search foodpanda restaurants near a location. Returns restaurants delivering to a latitude/longitude in a foodpanda market, optionally filtered by a numeric cuisine id (call foodpanda_search_cuisines for the live, location-scoped set of valid ids). Each restaurant carries its code (the value the restaurant and menu endpoints take), name, address, coordinates, budget tier, rating, cuisines, minimum order amount and delivery fee, delivery/pickup availability, and a hero image. A location with no coverage returns an empty list rather than an error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoRestaurants to return, clamped to 50 (default 20)
marketNoDelivery Hero market. Defaults to sg.
offsetNoResult offset for pagination (default 0)
latitudeYesSearch center latitude
longitudeYesSearch center longitude
cuisine_idNoNumeric cuisine id to filter by. Cuisine ids are location- and market-scoped, not a fixed global enum -- call foodpanda_search_cuisines with the same market/latitude/longitude to get the valid id set for this location

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.17.5
    • changedInput schema / properties / cuisine_id / description
      Previous value: -"Numeric cuisine id to filter by, from a restaurant's cuisines[].id"New value: +"Numeric cuisine id to filter by. Cuisine ids are location- and market-scoped, not a fixed global enum -- call foodpanda_search_cuisines with the same market/latitude/longitude to get the valid id set for this location"
    • addedInput schema / properties / market / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "sg",
+  "pk",
+  "bd",
+  "hk",
+  "my",
+  "ph",
+  "la",
+  "kh",
+  "tw",
+  "mm"
+]
  2. Addedv1.16.2

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses return fields in detail, the delivery scoping (restaurants delivering to a latitude/longitude), and the edge case that 'a location with no coverage returns an empty list rather than an error.' This goes beyond a generic search descriptionhare. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a read-only search operation the provided context is substantial.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by filtering details, return field enumeration, and a useful edge-case note. Every sentence serves a purpose, no filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description is the sole source for return value semantics. It comprehensively lists the fields each restaurant carries (code, name, address, coordinates, budget tier, rating, cuisines, minimum order, delivery fee, availability, hero image) and explains the empty-list behavior. It also provides a clear path forward by noting the code is used by restaurant and menu endpoints. This is complete for a search tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying that cuisine_id is location- and market-scoped and pointing to foodpanda_search_cuisines for valid ids—something the schema states but the description reinforces and explains the rationale. It also frames latitude/longitude as defining a point in a foodpanda market, which adds context. This goes beyond mere repetition of the schema.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search foodpanda restaurants near a location.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that the returned 'code' is the value the restaurant and menu endpoints take, and by explicitly referencing foodpanda_search_cuisines for cuisine ids. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from related tools.

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 description explicitly instructs to 'call foodpanda_search_cuisines for the live, location-scoped set of valid ids,' which is a clear pointer to an alternative for a specific parameter. It also implies a workflow: use this search to find restaurants, then use the 'code' with restaurant/menu endpoints. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus other search alternatives or provide exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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