rappi_get_orderTrack a single Rappi order by ID to view its current status and details. Choose from summary, structured, or raw output formats for your use case.
Track one order by id. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes | ||
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description merely repeats 'Read-only' without adding new context. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, response behavior, authentication needs) are disclosed. The description is consistent with annotations but adds no value beyond them.
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 and front-loaded with the main action, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity; a 3-parameter tool with two enum-based options warrants more detail than just 'Track one order'.
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?
Given the tool has 3 parameters (one required, two with enums) and no output schema, the description is too bare. It fails to explain the privacy_mode and response_format options, and it doesn't clarify how this tool differs from closely named siblings. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly without additional knowledge.
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 lack of parameter documentation. However, it does not explain any of the three parameters except implicitly referencing order_id via 'by id'. privacy_mode and response_format are completely undocumented in both schema and description, making it impossible to know how to use them as intended.
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 a clear verb ('Track') and resource ('one order by id'), which is specific. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like rappi_track_order or rappi_get_order_status, so it misses the top score for sibling distinction.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.