list_citiesRetrieve cities served by Snappfood, including IDs, names, and center coordinates. Use the center as a rough delivery point when only a city name is provided.
List cities Snappfood serves, with id, names and center coordinates.
Use the center as a rough delivery point when the user only names a city.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Filter on Persian title or English code, e.g. 'شیراز'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / query / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional filter on the Persian title or English code, e.g. 'شیراز' or 'Shiraz'."New value: +"Filter on Persian title or English code, e.g. 'شیراز'."Input schema / properties / query / titleRemoved value: -"Query"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"list_citiesArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "list_citiesDictOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds useful context by disclosing the returned fields and the approximate nature of center coordinates, but says nothing about pagination, filtering behavior, or result size.
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 short sentences with zero filler, front-loading the resource and scope before the practical tip. Nothing 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?
With no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the returned fields and explains the coordinate semantics. Combined with annotations that cover the safety profile, this is nearly complete; only filtering/pagination behavior is absent.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and there is only one optional parameter, so the schema fully documents the query filter (Persian title or English code). The description adds no parameter detail, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.
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 description gives a specific verb and resource ('List cities Snappfood serves') and names the returned fields (id, names, center coordinates), which cleanly separates it from reverse_geocode/find_location siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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?
It provides one usage condition ('Use the center as a rough delivery point when the user only names a city'), which implies when the tool is useful, but it never states when to prefer a sibling like reverse_geocode or find_location. Guidance is present but partial.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.