rappi_search_storesSearch nearby stores in Rappi using optional coordinates, limit, and query. Read-only access returns store details in markdown or JSON.
Browse nearby stores on the unofficial Rappi consumer surface. Optional lat/lng (or RAPPI_LAT/RAPPI_LNG). Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| latitude | No | ||
| longitude | No | ||
| 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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's 'Read-only' adds nothing new. It does add the 'unofficial' caveat and 'nearby' scope, which are useful, but it omits other behaviors like rate limits, pagination, or error handling. The description is consistent with 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 concise—two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately covers the crucial location parameters, making it easy to scan and understand.
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 is too sparse for a tool with six optional parameters and no output schema. It lacks explanation of privacy_mode, response_format, query behavior, and limits, and it does not differentiate from closely related tools. An agent would have to guess or inspect schemas to use it correctly.
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 coverage is 0%, and the description only explains the optional lat/lng and the RAPPI_LAT/RAPPI_LNG fallback. It leaves limit, query, privacy_mode, and response_format completely unexplained. For a tool with six parameters, this is inadequate compensation for the missing schema descriptions.
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 clearly states the tool browses nearby stores on the unofficial Rappi consumer surface, with optional location parameters. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling rappi_browse_stores, and the title says 'Search' while the description says 'Browse', which is mildly inconsistent. Overall, the core purpose is clear.
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 instead of alternatives like rappi_browse_stores or rappi_search_products. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.