Cluby MCP

Link benefit to POS articles

link_benefit_articles

DestructiveIdempotent

Link a benefit (benefitId from list_benefits) to the organization's POS provider's articles, by the article ids the provider's receipts name. When a cashier redeems the benefit through its action link, the answer's apply then names these articles so the till adds the right one; without a link the till adds a line by name. posArticles is the full set: [] clears it. priceListId names the price list (a price group, a menu) the till adds the article from when the provider prices it per list; name, categoryId and categoryName are kept for the Hub to show. Requires the admin role on the benefit's venue and a POS connection (get_pos_connection).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "benefitId": "<benefitId>",
      "posArticles": "<posArticles>"
    },
    "name": "link_benefit_articles"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`orgId`	No	Organization public id, the `id` field from list_orgs. Omit it when the API key reaches exactly one organization.
`benefitId`	Yes	Benefit `id` from list_benefits
`posArticles`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as idempotent and destructive; the description explains the destructive behavior precisely by stating posArticles is the full set and `[]` clears it. It also adds authorization requirements, the required POS connection, and the downstream till effect, which are meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core operation and contains no filler, but it is a dense run-on paragraph with several clauses packed together. The length is justified by the tool's complexity, yet slightly tighter structuring would improve scanability.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important missing context: full-set replacement semantics, clearing behavior, authorization requirements, POS connection prerequisite, and the downstream effect on till behavior. It does not need to explain return values because no output schema exists and the key outcome is described in terms of the benefit action link.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: benefitId comes from list_benefits, posArticles is the complete set with `[]` as clearing, priceListId selects the price list the till should use, and name/categoryId/categoryName are display metadata for the Hub. Although orgId is only documented in the schema, the description meaningfully explains the nested article semantics that the schema alone would not make as clear.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: linking a benefit to POS provider articles by the article ids named on receipts. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by referencing list_benefits, get_pos_connection, and the downstream till behavior, so an agent can identify the exact operation without opening another schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It clearly states when the link matters (cashier redemption via action link) and what happens without it (the till adds a line by name), plus prerequisites: admin role on the venue and a POS connection via get_pos_connection. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as search_pos_articles for finding article ids, so it falls just short of full alternative routing.

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

All Cluby MCP 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?