get_delivery_slotsList bookable delivery windows for the current cart, sorted soonest first, and see the order-by time. Read available slots without booking one.
List bookable delivery windows for the current cart, soonest first, with the time to order by. The tool only reads the slots, it does not book one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only sentence largely restates structured data. It does add useful behavioral context that results are ordered soonest-first and include an order-by time, but says nothing about limit/pagination or behavior with an empty cart.
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 compact sentences, with the core listing behavior front-loaded and the read-only caveat following. Every clause adds information and no sentence is wasted.
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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, ordering, and a key return field (time to order by). It falls short only on limit/pagination behavior and empty-cart edge cases, which are minor for this complexity level.
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?
The single `limit` parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description should explain it, but it never mentions result caps or paging. The parameter's default/maximum bounds are only inferable from the schema, and the description gives no guidance on how many slots are returned or how to request more.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('bookable delivery windows') scoped to the current cart, plus ordering ('soonest first') and payload ('time to order by'). No sibling tool is similar, so differentiation is moot but the purpose is unmistakable.
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?
Explicitly sets a boundary: 'The tool only reads the slots, it does not book one,' which tells the agent not to expect a booking action. There is no named alternative because no sibling overlaps, but it lacks explicit 'use when' phrasing such as requiring a non-empty cart.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.