ifood_list_active_ordersList your active iFood orders currently in progress. Retrieve ongoing orders with pagination and choose markdown or JSON responses for easy processing.
GET /v4/customers/me/orders?status=ONGOING (401 JSON without jwt). Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| size | No | ||
| 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 cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about the exact endpoint and the 401-without-JWT failure mode, but it does not disclose response structure, pagination behavior, or other runtime traits.
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 front-loaded sentence containing the endpoint, status filter, and an authentication caveat. There is no filler or redundant information, and every element earns its place.
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 tool with 4 undocumented optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It gives the endpoint and auth behavior but leaves pagination semantics, privacy_mode meaning, response_format behavior, and expected return contents unexplained.
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 input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention page, size, privacy_mode, or response_format. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare types and enums, so it fails to compensate for the missing param documentation.
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 states a specific verb and resource: listing active iFood orders via a GET endpoint with status=ONGOING. This scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like ifood_list_orders or ifood_get_order, even without naming them explicitly.
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 active/ONGOING framing implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of alternatives such as ifood_list_orders for historical orders. An agent must infer usage from the endpoint status rather than being told.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.