ifood_previous_itemsGet a list of items you ordered from a specific merchant, enabling quick reordering or reference. Read-only access to order history.
Items you ordered before at this merchant. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| merchant_id | 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' merely restates structured data. The description adds no behavioral context such as empty-result behavior, merchant-not-found handling, or the data-privacy implications hinted at by the privacy_mode parameter.
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 core resource is stated in a single front-loaded sentence with no waste. The second sentence, 'Read-only,' is redundant with the annotations but remains a harmless one-liner that would still help an agent unable to see annotations.
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 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and two enum parameters that materially change behavior, the description leaves the agent guessing about output shape and parameter effects. The annotations fully cover the safety profile, but the operational picture is incomplete.
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 must compensate, but it only contextualizes merchant_id ('at this merchant'). It says nothing about privacy_mode (summary/structured/raw) or response_format (markdown/json), leaving two behavior-shaping parameters entirely undocumented.
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 a specific resource — items ordered before at a given merchant — which differentiates it from siblings like ifood_list_orders (orders, not items) and ifood_get_cart (current cart). However, the retrieval verb is implied rather than stated explicitly ('Items you ordered before'), preventing a top score.
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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 24 siblings including ifood_list_orders, ifood_get_order, and ifood_search, the description never states a selection condition, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.