rappi_clear_cartClears the entire Rappi shopping cart by removing all items, so you can start a new order without deleting products one by one.
Gated write. RAPPI_ALLOW_MUTATIONS + explicit_user_intent required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| response_format | No | markdown | |
| explicit_user_intent | No | Must be true after the user explicitly asked for this write. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the gating requirements (RAPPI_ALLOW_MUTATIONS and explicit_user_intent) beyond the annotations, which is valuable context for a destructive operation. However, it does not describe the effect of clearing (e.g., emptying the cart) or other behavioral traits. Given the annotations already mark it destructive, this adds some but limited transparency.
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 extremely concise, front-loading the key gating condition in a single sentence with no wasted words. The structure is effective and efficient, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.
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 description omits the core purpose of the tool. While the title hints at clearing the cart, the description should explicitly state that to ensure correct usage. It also does not mention outcomes or side effects, and with no output schema, the agent lacks a complete picture of the operation.
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 description does not elaborate on any parameters. It references explicit_user_intent but adds no meaning beyond the schema's own description. The response_format parameter remains undocumented in both schema and description (schema coverage is only 50%), and the description fails to compensate, so agents get no additional parameter guidance.
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 only labels the tool as a 'Gated write' and does not explicitly state that it clears the cart. The action is inferred from the tool name and title, but the description itself lacks a clear verb+resource statement, making it ambiguous for an agent that relies on the description alone.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rappi_update_cart_item or rappi_get_cart. The description only mentions a gating prerequisite, not usage context, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.