Skip to main content
Glama

GotCashback

by com.gotcashback

My favorite stores

get_my_favorite_stores
Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns the signed-in user's favorite stores (with their store_id). Use it when the user asks about 'my favorites' or 'my saved stores'; pair the store_ids with get_cashback_rates_by_store_id to report current rates for them. Requires OAuth sign-in with a GotCashback account; anonymous callers are prompted to authorize. All comparison tools work without signing in. Scope: 'favorites'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
storesNoThe user's favorite stores. Empty when they have none.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "The signed-in user's favorite stores.",
+  "properties": {
+    "stores": {
+      "description": "The user's favorite stores. Empty when they have none.",
+      "items": {
+        "description": "A store the user has saved to their GotCashback favorites.",
+        "properties": {
+          "country_code": {
+            "description": "Lowercase ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code of the country this store entry belongs to (e.g. 'us', 'ca', 'gb').",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "country_name": {
+            "description": "Country name in English, e.g. 'United States'.",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "description": "Store (retailer) name as shown on GotCashback.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "store_id": {
+            "description": "GotCashback's numeric store identifier. Pass it as store_id to get_cashback_rates_by_store_id, get_gift_cards_by_store_id, set_store_alert or toggle_favorite_store.",
+            "type": "integer"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the tool requires OAuth sign-in and anonymous callers are prompted to authorize, plus the scope is restricted to 'favorites' rather than all stores. However, it doesn't describe what happens when there are no favorites, or the exact shape of the response beyond store_id, and the 'Requires OAuth sign-in' behavior is a useful addition that partially compensates.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear opening sentence, a direct when-to-use clause, a downstream pairing instruction, and an auth note. Every sentence earns its place. It loses one point because the final annotation-style line 'Scope: favorites.' is slightly redundant with the opening sentence, and the sign-in mention could be more prominent.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent the resource, the access requirement, the sibling to pair with, and the boundary between signed-in and comparison tools. It could be more complete by clarifying the response when there are no favorites, but given the output schema exists and the annotation set is strong, this is a minor gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the input side is fully documented. With no parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level specifics because none are needed; it does convey that the primary meaningful output is store_id, which aids downstream tool selection.

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 clearly states the action ('Returns'), the specific resource ('the signed-in user's favorite stores'), and the key field returned ('store_id'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly framing its scope as 'my favorites' / 'my saved stores' and by noting that comparison tools work without sign-in, which separates it from the broader store and deal retrieval tools.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it when the user asks about my favorites or my saved stores.' It also gives routing direction by telling the agent to pair the resulting store_ids with get_cashback_rates_by_store_id, and notes that comparison tools work without signing in, implicitly warning against using this tool when the user's request does not require the signed-in context.

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

All GotCashback toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a clearly distinct resource and action, and the descriptions carefully cross-reference when to use each one. The main risk is the similar get_stores_by_name, get_cashback_rates_by_store_name, and get_gift_cards_by_store_name names, though their descriptions do a good job of separating identity, cashback rates, and gift cards.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming follows a mostly consistent get_<resource>_by_<selector> pattern with clear verb prefixes for mutations like set, remove, and toggle. Minor inconsistencies exist, such as get_portal_by_id (singular) versus get_portals_by_name (plural), and the get_my_* cluster for account tools.

Tool Count4/5

Eighteen tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but the count is justified by the breadth of the domain: store comparison, brand and category deals, gift cards, portals, countries, and user account features. Each tool has a distinct purpose, so the set does not feel genuinely bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the main workflows well: finding cashback by store, brand, or category, comparing gift cards and portls, browsing countries and stores, and managing favorites, alrts, and profile. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct way to rank all stores in a country by cashback rate without per-store lookups, but agents can work around these.

Resources