rappi_capabilitiesCheck which Rappi operations the MCP can perform. View allowed read actions and gated write operations in markdown or JSON format.
What this unofficial MCP can read and which writes stay gated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it explains which writes stay gated, providing context about the tool's purpose. It does not contradict annotations, and it adds a small amount of behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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 concise sentence with no waste. It front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary detail. However, it is so terse that it might under-specify, but it earns a high score for efficiency.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns or how to interpret its output. It only states the general topic (read/write capabilities) but does not describe the format, list of capabilities, or any response details. This is incomplete for an agent needing to act on the result.
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 parameter guidance. The sole parameter `response_format` is documented only via its enum values and default in the schema, and the description does not mention it at all. No meaning is added beyond what the schema already provides, and the low coverage is not compensated.
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 states the tool's purpose: it reports what the MCP can read and which writes are gated. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are all specific operations like browsing catalogs or placing orders. It could be more explicit about the output (e.g., returning a list of capabilities), but the intent is clear.
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 implies this tool is for understanding the MCP's read/write capabilities, which is useful for an agent deciding whether to perform operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.