Skip to main content
Glama

Claim a voucher

claim_voucher
Destructive

Claim (redeem) a voucher code to add its USD value to the authenticated account's balance.

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": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "claim_voucher"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesThe voucher code to claim.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write profile is known; the description usefully adds that the effect is a credit in USD to the caller's balance. It does not disclose whether a code is single-use and consumed on success — important for a destructive, likely irreversible redemption — nor what happens on failure.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the effect stated last — zero filler and no redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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 needn't be explained, and there is only one parameter. What remains missing for a destructive redemption operation is the single-use/irreversibility behavior and failure semantics, which is a meaningful gap for a tool where a blind retry could waste a voucher.

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 coverage is 100% with a single required 'code' parameter already described in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds only that the code carries a USD value, not format, case sensitivity, or normalization rules.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (claim/redeem), a specific resource (voucher code), and the concrete effect (USD value credited to the authenticated account's balance). No sibling is named, but the siblings (SMS rentals, login links, balance) are unrelated enough that confusion is unlikely.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the purpose — an agent holding a voucher code should call this — but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of error paths (invalid, expired, or already-claimed codes), and no guidance on retry safety. Nothing misleads, but nothing guides either.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.