Turns one of your discount codes on or off. Reversible; it deletes nothing and does not touch its history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Id of the code (my_promo_codes gives it). | |
| active | Yes | true turns it on, false turns it off. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | Always true: the change has been saved. | |
| active | Yes | FINAL state of the code: on or off. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / allOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "required": [
- "active"
- ]
- },
- {
- "required": [
- "activo"
- ]
- }
- ]
- }
-]Input schema / properties / activoRemoved value: -{
- "deprecated": true,
- "description": "DEPRECATED alias of `active`: it still works, but use `active` (it will be removed in a future round, no date yet). true turns it on, false turns it off.",
- "type": "boolean"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id"
-]New value: +[
+ "id",
+ "active"
+]Input schema / x-bernuvia-aliasesRemoved value: -{
- "active": "activo"
-}Input schema / properties / active / descriptionPrevious value: -"true lo enciende, false lo apaga."New value: +"true turns it on, false turns it off."Input schema / properties / activo / descriptionPrevious value: -"ALIAS RETIRADO de `active`: sigue funcionando, pero usa `active` (se quitará en una tanda futura, aún sin fecha). / DEPRECATED alias of `active`. true lo enciende, false lo apaga."New value: +"DEPRECATED alias of `active`: it still works, but use `active` (it will be removed in a future round, no date yet). true turns it on, false turns it off."Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Id del código (lo da my_promo_codes)."New value: +"Id of the code (my_promo_codes gives it)."Output schema / properties / active / descriptionPrevious value: -"Estado FINAL del código: encendido o apagado."New value: +"FINAL state of the code: on or off."Output schema / properties / ok / descriptionPrevious value: -"Siempre true: el cambio se ha guardado."New value: +"Always true: the change has been saved."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses reversibility, that nothing is deleted, and that history is untouched — exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before mutating a code. It omits permission/ownership requirements, keeping it short of a 5.
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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key safety fact. No filler, every clause earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the reversible/non-destructive guarantee covers the main behavioral risk of a mutation tool lacking annotations. Only a note on required permissions or ownership is missing.
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 both parameters (id, active) are already fully documented, including that my_promo_codes supplies the id. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (turns on/off) and resource (one of your discount codes), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from the look-alike sibling set_template_active, but the resource scope makes the distinction inferable.
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 implied by the resource scope ('one of your discount codes') and the id parameter pointing back to my_promo_codes, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.
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.