ifood_reviewsRetrieve merchant reviews for any iFood restaurant using its merchant ID. Choose summary, structured, or raw output and format results as markdown or JSON to match your analysis needs.
Merchant reviews. 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?
The only behavioral claim, 'Read-only,' merely restates the readOnlyHint annotation and adds nothing beyond it. The description does not explain how privacy_mode affects the returned data, what response_format controls, or whether any filtering or pagination applies, especially with no output schema present.
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 very short, but the 'Read-only' fragment duplicates annotation data, and 'Merchant reviews' is an under-specified noun phrase. This reads as under-specification rather than deliberate, efficient conciseness.
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 and a 0%-coverage input schema, the description leaves the agent without enough information to know what review data is returned, how privacy modes differ, or how the response format behaves. It is minimally usable but incomplete for a tool with three configurable parameters.
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 for the three undocumented parameters, but it mentions none of them. merchant_id, privacy_mode, and response_format are left entirely unexplained beyond their literal schema names and enum labels.
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 ('Merchant reviews') and signals that the tool is read-only, but it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'list'. It is not a tautology, but it does not sharply differentiate itself from review-adjacent sibling tools like ifood_merchant_info.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases. The noun-phrase description only implies that it is related to merchant reviews.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.