get_program_expiryReturns one UAE loyalty program's published rule on when its points expire and, where the program publishes one, what a point is worth, each with the program's own source link and the date it was last checked. Where the program publishes no value per point, the result says so and gives no number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The program's identifier, as returned by list_programs. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent and closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It does so usefully by disclosing the response shape (rule, source link, last-checked date) and the null-handling contract when no value per point is published — a behavior an agent could not infer from annotations.
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 tight sentences with no filler; the primary output (expiry rule) is front-loaded and the secondary detail follows. The second sentence is slightly long but every clause carries information about return content.
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 one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what an agent still needs — what comes back, including provenance fields and the no-value case. Only a missing fallback for an invalid or unpublished program keeps it from being fully complete.
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%: the single enum parameter is documented and tied back to list_programs. The description adds no further meaning about the slug beyond what the enum and its description already supply, so the baseline of 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?
Opens with a specific verb ("Returns") and a precisely scoped resource: one named program's published points-expiry rule plus optional value-per-point. The singular "one ... program's" implicitly separates it from the list_programs sibling, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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: it is clearly a per-program detail lookup for a slug the caller already has, and the schema points at list_programs as the slug source. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this versus list_programs or what to do if the slug is unknown.
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.