ifood_identitiesRetrieve external identities for the authenticated iFood customer. Choose privacy mode and response format to get structured identity data for account linking.
Allowlisted GET /v1/customers/me/external-identities. Identity redacted. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| privacy_mode | No | ||
| response_format | No | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description repeating 'Read-only' adds little. However, 'Identity redacted' is a useful behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations, indicating that output is intentionally masked.
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 short and front-loaded with the most identifying information: the exact endpoint. Each phrase carries some weight, though 'Read-only' partially duplicates what annotations already state. Overall it is appropriately concise and well-structured.
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?
The tool has two optional parameters that are completely unexplained, and there is no output schema. While the tool is a simple read operation, an agent cannot determine what privacy_mode settings do or what response shapes to expect. The description is too sparse for fully informed invocation.
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%, and there are two parameters (privacy_mode, response_format) with enums. The description does not explain what these parameters mean, how they affect output, or why an agent would choose one value over another. It entirely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Allowlisted GET /v1/customers/me/external-identities'. This clearly identifies the exact endpoint and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ifood_customer_me or ifood_contact_methods by resource name.
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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'Allowlisted' and the endpoint provide some context, but there is no guidance on conditions, prerequisites, or why this tool is preferable to related identity/customer tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.