rappi_rate_orderSubmit a rating for a Rappi order using its order ID and a 1–5 score, optionally adding a comment. Only proceeds when the user explicitly confirms the rating intent.
Requires explicit_user_intent. Does not charge.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| score | Yes | ||
| comment | No | ||
| order_id | Yes | ||
| 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 adds that explicit_user_intent is required and that the tool does not charge. These are useful behavioral notes beyond what annotations provide. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint and non-readOnly, so the description supplements with cost clarification. It does not contradict 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 extremely short and to the point, but it lacks substance. It is not structured to front-load the purpose; it merely presents two unrelated statements without a coherent flow.
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 mutation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this description is grossly incomplete. It provides no information about return values, error handling, or required preconditions beyond explicit_user_intent. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the description alone.
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 only 20% (only explicit_user_intent has a description). The tool description does not explain score, comment, order_id, or response_format. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving agents without 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 'Requires explicit_user_intent. Does not charge.' does not state what the tool does. It only mentions prerequisites and cost, not the action of rating an order. The purpose is implied by the name and title but not clearly articulated, making it vague.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rappi_tip_order or rappi_cancel_order. No context about typical scenarios, exclusions, or differentiation from siblings is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.