McClipFace

Report whether a coupon code worked

report_coupon_result

Records whether a McClipFace (formerly Clippy) coupon code worked at checkout (merchant, code, worked or rejected). Stores no personal or cart data. Call it only when the shopper has turned on Community mode, after the user has tried the code. Report once per code per checkout, after the final attempt: every result, worked or failed (consent is presumed). In Private mode, or before the shopper picks a mode, do not call it. Send only the store, the code and the outcome; never cart, totals or user data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes	The code that was tried.
`outcome`	Yes	worked: checkout accepted it and the total went down. rejected (or failed): the store refused it.
`merchant`	Yes	Store name as used with find_coupons, e.g. "Tommy John".
`offer_id`	No	Optional: the offer id from find_coupons; used instead of merchant and code.
`eligibility`	No	eligible only when the code's known terms were met; ineligible when they were not (an ineligible rejection does not count against the code).	unknown
`saved_amount`	No	Optional, worked only: amount saved. Only whether it is above 0 is stored, never the amount.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`offer_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 3, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / outcome / description

Previous value: -"worked: checkout accepted it. rejected: the store refused it."New value: +"worked: checkout accepted it and the total went down. rejected (or failed): the store refused it."

changedInput schema / properties / outcome / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "worked",
-  "rejected"
-]New value: +[
+  "worked",
+  "rejected",
+  "failed"
+]

changedOutput schema / properties / status / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "stored",
-  "duplicate",
-  "limited"
-]New value: +[
+  "stored",
+  "duplicate",
+  "limited",
+  "test"
+]

AddedOct 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-idempotent profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: no personal or cart data is stored, consent is presumed, and reporting is once-per-code-per-checkout after the final attempt.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and the mode/consent gating, which is the most important information. Slightly repetitive ('worked or rejected' / 'every result, worked or failed'), but every sentence carries actionable instruction.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: eligibility conditions, data boundaries, and per-checkout reporting scope.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented, including the enums and the merchant/code vs offer_id distinction. The description reinforces the data-minimization intent ('send only the store, the code and the outcome') but adds no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb+resource: records the outcome of a coupon code attempt, with the domain (McClipFace, formerly Clippy) named explicitly. An agent can immediately distinguish this reporting tool from the read-only find_coupons/find_product_coupons/get_deals siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit when-to-call conditions (Community mode on, after the shopper tried the code, after the final attempt, once per code per checkout) and explicit when-not-to-call conditions (Private mode, before a mode is picked). Nothing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All McClipFace tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?