ifood_capabilitiesDiscover iFood data accessible for reads and which write operations remain gated until explicit opt-in.
What this unofficial MCP can read and which writes stay gated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| response_format | No | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond those flags: this is an 'unofficial' MCP and writes are 'gated,' which helps an agent calibrate expectations. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 a single dense sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the read-versus-write scope. It is appropriately brief for a simple introspection tool, though it borders on being too terse to cover usage or return details.
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 zero-required-parameter capability tool, the annotations and description cover safety and the broad purpose. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the returned capability report will contain, how detailed it will be, or when exactly to invoke it.
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 sole parameter, response_format, is defined in the schema with an enum and default, but the description adds no parameter-level information. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should have compensated, and it does not.
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 clearly identifies the tool as a capability overview for the unofficial MCP, distinguishing readable operations from gated writes. It implies a list/report action and is distinct from the operation-specific sibling tools, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'return'.
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 call this tool versus the sibling tools, such as 'use this first to discover what actions are available.' The phrasing weakly implies it is a discovery/pre-flight tool, but that inference is left entirely to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.