Retrieve a store's address, phone, rating, cuisine tags, hours, tagline, and full menu using its Uber Eats UUID for detailed restaurant data.
Get an UberEats store. Returns an UberEats store: address, phone, rating, cuisine tags, hours tagline, and the full menu (sections with items, descriptions, and prices).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| store_id | Yes | UberEats store UUID, as returned by the search endpoint's storeUuid field |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is a read-style getter and lists the returned fields including the full menu, but it does not mention permissions, rate limits, failure behavior, or pagination. The disclosed return contents add useful context, but the transparency is only partial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences and front-loads the purpose. There is minor redundancy in repeating "UberEats store" between the two sentences, but otherwise it is efficient and appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description gives a useful inventory of expected return fields, making the tool sufficiently complete for correct invocation. It does not resolve the overlap with ubereats_store_menu or describe error behavior, which keeps it from being fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the single store_id parameter is already fully documented by the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ("Get an UberEats store") and enumerates the returned data (address, phone, rating, cuisine tags, hours tagline, full menu). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from the sibling ubereats_store_menu, which likely also returns menu content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ubereats_search or ubereats_store_menu. The store_id schema hint implies it is a detail lookup, but the description itself provides no usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.