Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

whataburger_store

Retrieve one Whataburger store's address, coordinates, phone, hours, and services from its sitemap path. Use for location checks; menu data is not included.

Instructions

Get one Whataburger store's detail. Returns one Whataburger store: postal address, coordinates, phone, published week of opening hours, the restaurant services (curbside, delivery) Whataburger lists for it, and a per-channel hours breakdown (dine-in, drive-thru, curbside, delivery) where the channel's hours genuinely differ from the store's top-level hours. Store paths come from GET /whataburger/sitemap -- a store's canonical, curbside and delivery page paths all describe the same physical restaurant and return the same address; the response's own path field always reports the canonical page. Passing a state or city directory path returns a 404 rather than a hollow record. Note there is no menu source, so this family is a locator only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesStore path from a /whataburger/sitemap entry

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.16.2

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the return contents, the per-channel hours nuance, path canonicalization (canonical/curbside/delivery paths resolve to the same restaurant), the response's canonical path field, 404 behavior, and the absence of menu data. These are behavioral traits well beyond a restated name.

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?

It is front-loaded with the short purpose sentence, then layers detail. The middle sentences are dense but each carries non-redundant information (canonicalization, 404 semantics, no menu). Slightly long, but nothing is clearly wasted.

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 and no annotations, so the description must explain both returns and behavior; it does so comprehensively. An agent has everything needed to source a valid path, call the tool, and interpret the result.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the path's origin, that multiple path variants map to the same physical store, and that the response's path field reports the canonical value. This goes beyond the schema's one-line 'Store path from a /whataburger/sitemap entry'.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb (Get) and resource (one Whataburger store's detail), and the body enumerates exactly what the record contains. It also scopes the tool as a locator-only family, which distinguishes it from any menu-oriented sibling and from whataburger_sitemap.

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?

It tells the agent where valid inputs come from (paths from GET /whataburger/sitemap) and gives a concrete failure mode (directory paths return 404). It lacks an explicit 'use this vs that' comparison, but the when-to-use context is clear and actionable.

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