UberSync MCP Server

Complete Demo Ride

complete_ride

Complete an active ride instantly to move the booking into receipt flow, enabling testing or demonstration of post-ride billing.

Instructions

Development/demo control that completes an active ride immediately so the receipt flow can be presented.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "rideId": "<rideId>"
    },
    "name": "complete_ride"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rideId`	Yes	Ride ID returned by request_ride

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It discloses that completion is immediate and that it is a development/demo action, giving some indication of side effect (receipt flow). However, it does not state whether the action is irreversible, what happens to the ride state beyond completion, or any demo-only restrictions beyond the label.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and purpose. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant restating of the tool name or schema.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple one-parameter tool this is adequate: it names the prerequisite ('active ride') and the follow-up flow (receipt presentation). But without annotations or an output schema, it leaves unstated what the tool returns or confirms, and does not spell out production-safety disclaimers.

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?

There is a single parameter rideId and the schema description already covers it ('Ride ID returned by request_ride', 100% coverage). The tool description adds no new parameter detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'completes' with direct object 'active ride' and explicitly notes it is a 'Development/demo control' intended to advance to receipt flow. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cancel_ride or request_ride.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The phrase 'Development/demo control' sets the context of when to use it, and 'so the receipt flow can be presented' gives the intended use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'do not use in production', but the demo-scope wording makes the usage context clear.

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