CraveUp MCP Server

Official

by craveup-oss

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

Check if a location can accept storefront orders

check_storefront_readiness

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check if a storefront is ready to accept orders by verifying menu products, takeout availability via read-only probes, and payment configuration readiness without creating carts.

Instructions

Hybrid wizard readiness probe: verifies menu has products, a read-only ordering-readiness GET reports takeout availability without creating a cart, and payment configuration is ready. Connected Square is authoritative and must itself be ready; otherwise Stripe is used. It does not create a PaymentIntent or Square payment. Does not use dashboard isOnboardingCompleted. Public probes use the direct Storefront API; private integration status still requires CRAVEUP_API_KEY.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "check_storefront_readiness"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`locationId`	No	Omit to use CRAVEUP_LOCATION_ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`mode`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`changes`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`operation`	Yes
`planDigest`	Yes
`environment`	Yes
`nextActions`	Yes
`schemaVersion`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.1Aug 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description explicitly guarantees no cart creation, no PaymentIntent, no Square payment, and no reliance on dashboard isOnboardingCompleted. It also clarifies the authoritative payment provider logic and CRAVEUP_API_KEY requirement, providing rich behavioral 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 dense but efficient, leading with the core purpose and then adding only essential constraints: what is verified, side-effect guarantees, payment provider logic, and auth requirements. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description covers everything needed for correct invocation: object, checks, fallback behavior, side-effect absence, auth requirements, and intentionally avoided data sources. Nothing material is missing.

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?

The schema already documents locationId at 100% coverage, including the 'omit to use CRAVEUP_LOCATION_ID' behavior. The description mentions CRAVEUP_API_KEY in an auth context but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the 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 clearly identifies the tool as a readiness probe and enumerates exactly what it checks: menu has products, takeout availability via a read-only GET, and payment configuration readiness. This makes both the verb and resource unambiguous and distinguishes it from onboarding or order-management siblings.

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 provides concrete context for when the result is meaningful, including the Square-authoritative-versus-Stripe fallback logic and the public/private API key distinction. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so some sibling-routing is left to the agent.

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