Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@striderlabs/mcp-starbucks

@striderlabs/mcp-starbucks

by markswendsen-code
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

search_menu

Search Starbucks menu by name, category, or dietary preference to find matching drinks and food with prices and calories.

Instructions

Search the Starbucks menu by name, category, or dietary preferences. Returns matching drinks and food items with prices and calories.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "search_menu"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoSearch term (e.g., 'latte', 'cold brew', 'croissant', 'matcha')
categoryNoFilter by category (e.g., 'Hot Coffees', 'Cold Coffees', 'Frappuccino', 'Teas', 'Refreshers', 'Bakery', 'Hot Breakfast', 'Snacks & Sweets')
dietaryNoFilter by dietary preference (e.g., ['vegan', 'vegetarian', 'dairy-free', 'gluten-free'])

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. Describes output (matching items with prices and calories) but does not mention read-only nature, pagination, limits, or side effects. Adequate for a straightforward search tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with main purpose and criteria. No fluff, every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, description adequately covers key outputs (prices, calories). Could mention sorting or partial matches but sufficient for basic search use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description summarizes parameters but adds no significant beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states verb 'Search' and resource 'Starbucks menu', specifies criteria (name, category, dietary preferences) and output (items with prices and calories). Differentiates from sibling tools like get_item_details by focusing on search rather than retrieval.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies use for searching menu items but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_item_details or specify when not to use. Lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools