Event-driven microservices platform for restaurant management with Kafka-based event streaming, n8n workflow automation, and B2B partner webhook integration
This MCP server has critical definition quality gaps. Tool descriptions are present but generic (avg ~60 chars, well below the 194-char baseline). Input schemas are minimal or missing type information, most tools declare only object parameters without field-level types or descriptions. No output schemas are documented. Parameter descriptions are sparse or absent. The server appears to be a FastAPI demo for webhook handling, but tool definitions lack the rigor needed for reliable LLM invocation. No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) are present despite clear risk levels (WRITE, DESTRUCTIVE). Error handling and recovery guidance are absent.
Check health of MesaYA services
Clear all stored events
Render the main dashboard
Get all received and sent events
Get current partner registration status
Health check endpoint
Receive webhooks from MesaYA. This endpoint receives payment events and other notifications. Verifies HMAC-SHA256 signature if partner is registered.
No output schemas documented for any tool. LLMs cannot plan downstream calls or extract required fields (e.g., what does get_events return? Is it a list? What fields?). This violates the documented-return-types baseline (100% of A+ tools have them).
Input schemas lack field-level type information and descriptions. 'request' parameter in receive_webhook and dashboard is typed as 'object' with no nested schema. 'data' in send_event is 'object' with no structure. LLMs cannot validate or construct these payloads.
Destructive tool (clear_events) has no confirmation step, dry-run option, or recovery guidance. An agent could accidentally wipe all events. No error handling or undo mechanism documented.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 37 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
Register this service as a B2B partner in MesaYA
Send a webhook event to MesaYA (bidirectional communication)
No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) despite clear risk levels declared (READ_ONLY, WRITE, DESTRUCTIVE). LLMs cannot infer safety properties and may misuse tools.
Parameter descriptions are missing or generic. 'events' in register_as_partner has no description of valid event types. 'target_url' in send_event lacks format/validation guidance. 'x_webhook_signature' and 'x_partner_id' in receive_webhook lack context on how to obtain them.