Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
snapp-mcp

snapp-mcp

by sepehr071
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Restaurant reviews

food_reviews
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read recent restaurant customer reviews with ratings, text, orders, and vendor replies to assess quality, delays, or packaging before recommending.

Instructions

Read recent customer reviews of a restaurant (rating, text, what they ordered, vendor reply).

Use to judge quality, delays or packaging before recommending.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage of 10, newest first, from 0.
full_textNoReturn review and reply text uncut (default cut to 400 chars).
vendor_codeYesVendor code, e.g. '947evd' (from food_search / food_restaurants).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changedv0.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / full_text
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Return review and reply text uncut (default cut to 400 chars).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / page / description
      Previous value: -"Zero-based page of 10 reviews, newest first."New value: +"Page of 10, newest first, from 0."
    • removedInput schema / properties / page / title
      Removed value: -"Page"
    • changedInput schema / properties / vendor_code / description
      Previous value: -"Snappfood vendor code, e.g. '947evd' (from food_search / food_restaurants)."New value: +"Vendor code, e.g. '947evd' (from food_search / food_restaurants)."
    • removedInput schema / properties / vendor_code / title
      Removed value: -"Vendor Code"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"food_reviewsArguments"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "title": "food_reviewsDictOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the review content shape, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination limits, rate limits, or whether reviews can be absent for a vendor.

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, zero filler: the first states the operation and the returned fields, the second states the decision context. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the return contents (rating, text, order items, vendor reply) and the schema covers paging and truncation. Missing only edge-case behavior such as empty review sets or maximum page depth.

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 description coverage is 100%, with page, full_text and vendor_code all documented including the 400-char default and the source of the vendor code. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already supplies, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Read recent customer reviews of a restaurant') and enumerates what the reviews contain (rating, text, ordered items, vendor reply). It does not explicitly contrast with the parallel market_reviews sibling, but the 'restaurant' qualifier implicitly scopes it, so an agent can distinguish them by resource type.

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 second sentence gives clear situational guidance: use it to judge quality, delays or packaging before recommending. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g. market_reviews for non-food stores), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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