rappi_list_payment_methodsList saved payment methods from your Rappi account. Privacy mode redacts last-four and identity by default; does not charge. Use to view available payment options without checkout actions.
Read saved payment methods. Last-four and identity redacted by default. Does not charge.
| 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=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is lighter. It adds two concrete behavioral facts beyond annotations: 'Last-four and identity redacted by default' and 'Does not charge.' These are useful and not redundant with 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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value; no fluff. The redaction and 'no charge' notes are the next most important facts and are placed immediately after.
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 read tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior (read, redact, no charge) but omits how the parameters alter the output (e.g., what 'summary' vs 'raw' privacy_mode produces, or how markdown vs json formats differ). Since the parameters are the only way to customize the tool, this missing context is a noticeable gap.
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 explain the parameters' purpose, but it doesn't mention privacy_mode or response_format at all. The schema only provides enum values, leaving the agent to guess their impact on output. This is a significant gap for a tool with two optional parameters that clearly affect the result.
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 specific action ('Read') on a specific resource ('saved payment methods') and adds two distinguishing details: redaction defaults and 'Does not charge.' This clearly separates it from sibling tools like rappi_list_orders or rappi_list_addresses.
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 makes the tool's purpose obvious: it lists payment methods. While it doesn't explicitly mention when to avoid it (e.g., for setting a payment method, use rappi_set_payment_method), the clarity of the resource and the context of sibling names make the usage scenario straightforward. There are no explicit exclusions but also no misleading guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.