ifood_categoriesRetrieve top-level iFood categories near any location by providing latitude and longitude. Returns read-only category options for use in browsing or filtering.
Top-level categories near a point. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| latitude | Yes | ||
| longitude | Yes | ||
| privacy_mode | No | ||
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description merely repeats 'Read-only' without adding operational caveats like return pagination, rate limits, or effect of optional parameters. It surfaces no meaningful behavioral trait beyond what the annotations supply.
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 extremely short and front-loads the key idea. The only minor waste is 'Read-only,' which is already carried by the annotations, but the overall compactness helps an agent parse the tool quickly.
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 simple read-only category lookup with strong annotations, the description is nearly enough: it states the resource and the spatial scope, and the schema covers the inputs. However, with no output schema and no description of what the returned categories look like or how optional modes affect output, an agent is left with small but real unknowns.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description has to compensate, but it only hints at latitude/longitude through 'near a point.' It does not explain privacy_mode or response_format, and the required coordinate semantics are left to the agent to infer.
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?
Names a specific resource — top-level categories — and scopes it to a geographic point, making the operation reasonably clear despite no explicit verb like 'list' or 'get.' It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as ifood_filter_options or ifood_home, so it stops 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?
The phrase 'near a point' conveys the intended use case: retrieve top-level categories for a location. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites such as authentication or a created session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.