/vendor/uber-eats/AgentRouting.json or
/vendor/uber-eats/AgentContext.json directly.
ubereats.com
Overview
Does ubereats.com support MCP?
No confirmed MCP support was found for ubereats.com as of 2026-06-29.
What agentic protocols does ubereats.com support?
As of 2026-06-29, ubereats.com has confirmed support for openai_apps_sdk and proprietary.
Is ubereats.com's API publicly accessible or partner-gated?
Access varies by protocol: open, partner only.
Does ubereats.com explicitly prohibit automated access?
Yes. ubereats.com's terms of service explicitly prohibit automated or scraper access to the public website without prior written permission.
Is ubereats.com agent-ready?
Partial. ubereats.com supports some agentic workflows but requires a human handoff for certain operations — see the protocols and summary sections for details.
Protocols
No evidence found of Uber Eats adopting, piloting, or being listed as a partner for the Agent2Agent (A2A) protocol. The confirmed A2A launch partners named publicly include Atlassian, Box, Cohere, Intuit, LangChain, MongoDB, PayPal, Salesforce, SAP, ServiceNow, UKG, and Workday — Uber Eats appears in none of these lists. A separate Uber Eats integration-partners page found covers third-party POS/ordering platforms, not agent communication protocols.
No evidence of Uber Eats (ubereats.com) appearing in any ACP launch partner list or integration announcement. Confirmed ACP retail launch partners include URBN brands (Anthropologie, Free People, Urban Outfitters), Coach, Kate Spade, Revolve, and Ashley Furniture — Uber Eats is absent from all such lists. As a food delivery platform rather than a retail/e-commerce merchant, Uber Eats falls outside the typical ACP adopter profile to date.
No evidence found that Uber Eats (ubereats.com) is among the 60+ launch partners or contributing organizations listed for the Agent Payments Protocol. Named partners in the AP2 launch materials include payment processors (Adyen, Worldpay, Revolut), infrastructure vendors (Confluent, PayPal), and crypto partners (Coinbase, Ethereum Foundation) — food delivery platforms are not represented. Choosing not_found rather than confirmed_absent because no Uber Eats-specific statement or deprecation notice was located; the absence is simply from partner lists, not a vendor declaration.
All MCP activity found for Uber Eats is from third-party community developers using browser automation or scraping to wrap the Uber Eats consumer website — none is published or sanctioned by Uber Eats itself. Uber (the parent company) has built an extensive internal MCP Gateway for its own engineering workforce (~1,500 agents, 10,000+ services), but this is an internal developer-productivity platform with no externally callable surface for Uber Eats partners or consumers. No official vendor-published MCP server or documentation was found at developer.uber.com or any other Uber-operated domain.
No evidence found that Uber Eats (ubereats.com) has adopted or announced support for MPP. Stripe's MPP launch coverage and mpp.dev documentation name no Uber Eats integration; a separate Stripe-Uber expanded payments partnership announcement exists but concerns traditional card-rail infrastructure, not MPP. Uber Eats is not among any named MPP launch partners.
No evidence of Uber Eats implementing NLWeb or exposing /ask or /mcp endpoints. Named NLWeb launch partners include Shopify, Snowflake, and TripAdvisor — Uber Eats does not appear among them. Search results for ubereats.com returned only merchant integration and product update content, with no NLWeb-related findings.
No usable finding available for this protocol (no legitimate scan available within the candidate window).
WebMCP is a Google/Microsoft browser-native agent protocol currently in early preview (Chrome origin trial from Chrome 149). No evidence found of Uber Eats implementing or announcing WebMCP support. The protocol's early preview program does not publicly name vendor participants; known experimenters cited are generic 'global consumer brands' with no Uber Eats specifics. Not confirmed_absent because Uber Eats has made no vendor-specific statement about the protocol.
No evidence that Uber Eats (ubereats.com) is a participant in or adopter of the x402 protocol. Known x402 ecosystem participants include Cloudflare, Stellar, and Solana-based services. Uber Eats operates a restaurant-and-POS integration platform with no public indication of stablecoin micropayment infrastructure. Not confirmed_absent because no vendor-specific statement or deprecation notice exists — simply no evidence of any involvement.
Restaurant and menu browse within ChatGPT (U.S. only); users can discover nearby Uber Eats restaurants and view menu items inside the ChatGPT interface, then are handed off to the Uber Eats app to complete payment and checkout — ordering is not completed within ChatGPT itself
Uber Eats launched its ChatGPT Apps SDK integration on November 18, 2025, confirmed by Uber's own help page at https://help.uber.com/ubereats/restaurants/article/chatgpt-integration-for-eaters?nodeId=7e56650b-9482-4a55-a560-1902ba2dd70e and still live as of April 2026 per TechCrunch reporting. Capability is U.S.-only and scoped to discovery/browse (restaurants and menus); actual order placement and payment remain in the Uber Eats native app, making this a handoff integration rather than a full transactional surface.
Two distinct APIs: (1) Uber Eats Marketplace APIs — REST endpoints for managing restaurant stores (online/offline status, hours), menus (create/update/sync), orders (receive/accept/fulfill via webhooks), promotions, and reporting; primarily used by POS integrators and multi-location operators. (2) Uber Direct APIs — REST endpoints for dispatching on-demand Uber couriers for merchant-owned delivery flows, independent of the Uber Eats marketplace listing. Both base at api.uber.com and are versioned (v1).
Production access requires completing an NDA and API licensing agreement and speaking with an Uber Eats partner manager; a sandbox environment is available for initial development without full approval. Docs for Marketplace APIs at https://developer.uber.com/docs/eats/introduction and Uber Direct at https://developer.uber.com/docs/deliveries/overview. Access is partner-gated, not self-serve.
Uber Direct API — REST endpoints enabling merchants to dispatch Uber couriers for on-demand same-day delivery outside the Uber Eats marketplace (i.e. for deliveries originating from a merchant's own storefront or app). Covers delivery creation, status tracking (including courier location webhooks), and cancellation.
Uber Direct is explicitly documented as distinct from the Marketplace APIs — the docs state the two serve different use cases. Docs at https://developer.uber.com/docs/deliveries/overview. Production access requires partner approval; sandbox access is self-serve via the developer portal.
Direct HTTP probing of ubereats.com for llms.txt, AGENTS.md, /.well-known/agent, /.well-known/ai-plugin.json, and /.well-known/ucp all returned connection failures (HTTP 000/timeout), indicating the domain blocks automated crawls at the network level. No web-indexed evidence was found of Uber Eats publishing any self-declaration file at these standard paths. Because the checks could not be completed due to network blocking rather than a genuine examination of the paths, not_found would be inaccurate — the check was structurally blocked.
Summary
Has agent interface: partial
Apply for partner access via the Uber Eats partner manager program to obtain OAuth 2.0 credentials for the Marketplace or Uber Direct APIs; separately, evaluate whether the existing ChatGPT Apps SDK integration (browse/discovery only, U.S.-only, handoff to native app for checkout) meets use-case needs without requiring direct API access.
AgentContext
Verified discrepancies
Vendor claim: Uber Eats displays item prices and advertises savings (particularly via Uber One membership) at the point of search and browsing, implying the shown price is the total cost before checkout. The platform describes add-on charges such as a 'local operating fee' as legitimate cost-offset mechanisms clearly tied to regulatory requirements.
What actually happens: Consumers consistently encounter a materially higher total at checkout than the price shown during browsing, due to service fees, delivery fees, and locality-specific surcharges (e.g., a 'local operating fee') that are not surfaced at the point of item selection. A California class action filed December 2024 alleges Uber Eats uses bait-and-switch pricing by withholding the full price until checkout. A separate FTC complaint (May 2024) also alleged these fees are deceptive because they are not genuinely tied to the stated justification and mislead consumers about the true cost of delivery.
Agent guidance: An agent completing a transaction on Uber Eats must not treat the item price or subtotal shown during browsing as the final charge. Before confirming any order, the agent must navigate fully to the checkout/order-summary screen and capture the itemized total — including all service fees, delivery fees, and any locality surcharges — and present that confirmed total to the user for approval prior to placing the order. Never commit to an order based solely on the browsed item price.
- California class action (Lauren Abedini v. Uber Technologies Inc., 24STCV34485, filed Dec. 30, 2024) alleges Uber Eats commits false advertising and unfair competition by hiding fees until checkout, violating California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 and 17500.
- A Seattle consumer filed an FTC complaint in May 2024 alleging Uber Eats and DoorDash mislead customers with 'junk fees' such as a 'local operating fee' that are not genuinely tied to the regulatory costs cited as justification.
- The FTC's Restaurant Business Online coverage notes that food delivery apps including Uber Eats were explicitly carved out of the 2025 FTC junk-fee rule requiring upfront total pricing, and the FTC is now pursuing a separate rule because it finds the deceptive-fee problem 'widespread' in this sector.
Vendor claim: Uber One subscribers can 'cancel anytime' without additional fees, and Uber's stated policy implies straightforward cancellation access through the Uber Eats app.
What actually happens: The FTC and 21 states filed complaints (April 2025, amended December 2025) in federal court alleging that Uber makes cancellation extraordinarily difficult in practice — requiring users to navigate at least 12 different actions across at least 7 screens with no mention of cancellation until the fourth screen — and that customer service representatives respond so slowly to cancellation requests that consumers are charged again without their consent before the cancellation is processed.
Agent guidance: Do not rely on Uber Eats' stated 'cancel anytime' policy to cancel an Uber One subscription on behalf of a user through automated flow. A human user should manually initiate the cancellation and verify completion across all screens, then monitor their payment method to confirm no further charges occur. Do not assume a cancellation request submitted via customer service has been processed until the user confirms no additional billing.
- The FTC's original complaint (PDF) filed in federal court details that Uber advertises 'cancel anytime' but forces consumers through a labyrinthine multi-screen process, and that Uber customer service delays result in unauthorized repeat charges.
- The FTC's April 2025 press release announces the lawsuit against Uber for deceptive billing and cancellation practices related to the Uber One subscription used across Uber Eats.
- The FTC's December 2025 press release confirms an amended complaint joined by 21 states and the District of Columbia, maintaining and expanding the allegations of deceptive cancellation and billing practices.
Human handoff required for
Obtain explicit user approval of the fully itemized checkout total — including all service fees, delivery fees, and locality-specific surcharges such as 'local operating fee' — before confirming any Uber Eats order, because the browsed item price or subtotal systematically understates the final charge
- A California class action filed December 2024 (Lauren Abedini v. Uber Technologies Inc., 24STCV34485) alleges Uber Eats uses bait-and-switch pricing by withholding mandatory fees until the final checkout screen, meaning the price shown during browsing is materially lower than the amount actually charged.
- An FTC consumer complaint filed May 2024 alleged that Uber Eats 'local operating fees' are deceptive junk fees not genuinely tied to their stated regulatory justification, reinforcing that these surcharges are not transparently disclosed at the point of item selection.
Escalate to the human user any attempt to cancel an Uber One subscription rather than completing the cancellation autonomously, because the in-app cancellation flow requires navigating at least 7 screens and 12 actions and customer service processing delays have resulted in unauthorized repeat charges before cancellation is confirmed
- The FTC filed a federal lawsuit in April 2025 against Uber Technologies and Uber USA LLC, joined by 21 states via an amended complaint in December 2025, specifically alleging that Uber's 'cancel anytime' promise for Uber One is materially deceptive: the actual flow requires at least 12 actions across at least 7 screens with no mention of cancellation until the fourth screen.
- The same FTC complaint alleges that when consumers contact customer service to cancel, representatives respond so slowly that consumers are charged again without consent before the cancellation is processed, meaning even the customer-service cancellation path is unreliable for preventing additional billing.
Five discrepancy categories were checked for Uber Eats (ubereats.com): (1) Pricing — a confirmed finding was present, supported by an active California class action (Dec. 2024) and FTC consumer complaint (May 2024) documenting that checkout totals systematically exceed browsed prices due to undisclosed fees. (2) Availability — no finding; searches returned no verified evidence of ghost inventory or items advertised as orderable that are blocked at checkout. (3) Identity — no finding; an FTC action was located but it concerns Uber One billing practices, not merchant-of-record ambiguity for food orders. (4) Policy — a confirmed finding was present, grounded in an active FTC federal lawsuit (April 2025, amended December 2025) alleging Uber One cancellation is deceptively difficult in practice despite a 'cancel anytime' claim. (5) Undisclosed constraints — no finding; a 2024 platform outage and merchant order-error documentation were found but neither constitutes a systemic hidden transactional constraint. Coverage was not blocked in any category, though the FTC food-delivery sector-specific pricing rule remains under development, meaning the regulatory landscape for pricing disclosures may change.