ifood_homeFetch localized iFood home cards based on latitude and longitude to see nearby restaurants and promotions. Choose summary, structured, or raw output in markdown or JSON.
Localized home cards. Read-only. May WAF from datacenter IPs.
| 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 description adds a useful behavioral warning beyond annotations: 'May WAF from datacenter IPs.' This tells agents that calls from datacenter IPs might fail and they may need an alternative approach. The 'Read-only' statement is redundant with readOnlyHint, so only the WAF warning earns credit.
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-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The 'Read-only' clause is redundant with annotations, but overall the definition is economical and scannable.
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?
With no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and a four-parameter schema, the description is too thin to be complete. It does not explain what 'home cards' look like, how privacy_mode affects output, or what to do when the WAF blocks the request.
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 carries the burden for parameter semantics. 'Localized' hints that latitude/longitude drive the content, but privacy_mode and response_format are completely unexplained, and their enums are not described.
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 identifies the resource (home feed/cards) and the key differentiator (localized), which separates it from siblings like ifood_search or ifood_categories. It is slightly informal and lacks a verb like 'get' or 'list', but the meaning is not ambiguous.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.