Paxaver MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_restaurant

Create a restaurant for the active school to hold menu items. Use this administrative action to set up a new dining option while confirming the write operation.

Instructions

ADMIN: Creates a restaurant for the active school; the restaurant can then hold menu items via create_menu_item. Requires pac_cordinator role. WRITE operation — confirm with the user.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Restaurant display name
`description`	No	Optional restaurant description
`school_slug`	No	School slug — defaults to the active school
`tax_percent`	No	Sales tax percentage applied to orders (e.g. 5 for 5%)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`name`	No
`isActive`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.4.3Sep 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations which already indicate a write and non-destructive operation, the description adds a meaningful behavioral requirement: 'WRITE operation — confirm with the user.' It also discloses the role requirement, giving the agent important execution context.

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 compact and front-loaded: 'ADMIN: Creates a restaurant for the active school' immediately conveys the core purpose, followed by the relationship to menu items and key behavioral prerequisites. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

With full schema coverage, an output schema present, and the description covering scope, role, downstream capability, and confirmation requirement, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter already described. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the 'active school' scoping, which is already captured in the school_slug parameter description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a restaurant for the active school.' It also clarifies scope and distinguishes the tool from related sibling create_menu_item by saying the restaurant 'can then hold menu items via create_menu_item.'

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 gives clear context: an ADMIN action that requires the pac_cordinator role and applies to the active school. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but no direct alternative for creating a restaurant exists among the siblings.

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