Track active Uber Eats orders and delivery progress to confirm a newly placed order landed, especially after an error, and check where food is while it's on the way.
Active orders and delivery progress.
Use this when:
Right after ue_place, to confirm the order landed — always when ue_place came back unknown or with an error.
While the food is on the way, if the user asks where it is.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds genuine value by prescribing the post-ue_place verification flow, but it never states that this is a read-only operation, whether completed/historical orders are included, or how fresh the delivery progress is. With no output schema either, more disclosure was warranted.
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?
Two short lines: a front-loaded statement of what it returns, followed by a bulleted 'use when' list. No filler, no repetition of the name, and the most actionable content (call it after ue_place) comes first.
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 no-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the decision context an agent needs to call it at the right moment. It is slightly thin on what 'delivery progress' actually contains (status granularity, ETA, history scope), which is the one remaining gap.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The empty schema leaves nothing to clarify, and the description correctly focuses on invocation timing rather than argument syntax.
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?
States the resource (active orders) and the payload (delivery progress), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from ue_cart, ue_search, and ue_place. The verb is only implied — there is no explicit 'retrieve/list' — so it falls just short of a 5.
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?
Gives two concrete trigger scenarios and ties them to a sibling tool's outcome: confirm after ue_place, especially when ue_place returned unknown or an error, and check while the order is in transit when the user asks location. That is explicit when-to-use guidance with a named alternative (ue_place) and a failure-recovery condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.