agenta_discounts_listList discount codes. Returns the merchant's discount codes with their id, whether each is a discount or tracking only, the plan it applies to and whether it is active, up to limit (1 to 100). Changes nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Results per page (default 10) | |
| business | No | Act for this business you manage (its id). Omit to act as yourself. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and 'Changes nothing' largely restates that. The description does add real value by disclosing the shape of the returned records (id, discount vs tracking, applicable plan, active flag), but omits pagination behavior beyond the limit wording.
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?
Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The return-field sentence earns its place since there is no output schema.
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 usefully covers the returned fields, and annotations carry the safety profile. It is nearly complete, only slightly thin on pagination and the business-scoping parameter.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description restates the limit range ('up to limit (1 to 100)') but says nothing about the business parameter or its purpose of acting on behalf of a managed business, adding little beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('List discount codes') and even enumerates the returned fields (id, discount/tracking, plan, active). This clearly separates it from write siblings like discounts_create and discounts_archive, though it never names discounts_show to distinguish listing from fetching a single code.
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?
Usage is only implied by the verb 'List' — an agent can infer it retrieves the collection rather than one code, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as agenta_discounts_show.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.