Place a new SnappFood order in dry-run mode using provider and order details. Prepare and validate food orders with explicit confirmation before submission.
PLACE ORDER (dry-run)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| provider | No | ||
| body-file | No | ||
| body-json | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. '(dry-run)' weakly hints that nothing is committed, but it directly conflicts in tone with 'PLACE ORDER' and the description never clarifies whether a real order can result, what the token/confirm flags gate, or whether the call is reversible.
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?
It is short, but shortness here is under-specification rather than conciseness. A two-word all-caps fragment plus a parenthetical gives no structure or front-loaded detail an agent can act on.
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?
A five-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema and no schema descriptions is left almost entirely undocumented. An agent cannot determine required inputs, auth flow, or return behavior from this definition.
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?
Five parameters at 0% schema description coverage and the description explains none of them. token, confirm, provider, body-file and body-json all remain opaque, including the apparent file-vs-json input duality.
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 fragment names a verb (PLACE) and an implied resource (order), so an agent can guess the domain. However, the '(dry-run)' qualifier makes the actual effect ambiguous: it is unclear whether this previews an order or places one. It also does nothing to distinguish itself from the many food_* siblings such as food_basket_create.
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, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. With ~15 food_* siblings covering baskets, vendors, menus and reviews, routing is entirely left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.