rappi_list_active_ordersRetrieve active and in-progress orders from your Rappi account with summary, structured, or raw output. Get a read-only view of current order status in Markdown or JSON to monitor deliveries.
In-flight / active orders plus in-progress (unofficial user-order-home). Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's 'Read-only' is redundant. The 'in-flight / active' context adds a minimal behavioral nuance, but the 'unofficial user-order-home' phrase is unexplained and provides little additional transparency 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 very short (one sentence), so it is concise, but it is not front-loaded with the most critical information. The cryptic 'unofficial user-order-home' consumes space without adding clarity, making it less effective than a clearer structured sentence.
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 0% parameter descriptions, the description should explain what the returned list contains, the meaning of the parameters, and any relevant behavior. It only vaguely says 'in-flight / active orders,' leaving the agent to guess the structure, format options, and exact semantics. Incomplete for a tool with optional enum 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%, and the description does not mention the two parameters (privacy_mode, response_format) at all. With no descriptions in the schema or text, the agent receives no explanation of how these enums affect the call, which is a significant gap.
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 title and description clearly indicate a 'list' operation for 'active orders', but the added phrase 'in-progress (unofficial user-order-home)' is cryptic and does not clarify the exact scope or how it differs from rappi_list_orders or rappi_get_order. The verb and resource are identifiable, but the description adds confusion rather than precision.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rappi_list_orders, rappi_get_order, or rappi_track_order. There is no mention of context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this specific list is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.