Skip to main content
Glama

Loyal Spark

by io.github.aspekt19

create_gift_certificate

Create a gift / welcome certificate (UDS-style) with a unique 6-character redemption code (LOYAL-XXXXXX). Customer redeems via QR or by entering the code; merchant then mints tokens on-chain. Use for welcome bonuses, promo campaigns, partnership gifts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNoDisplay title (default: 'Gift Certificate')
quantityNoNumber of certificates to create as a batch (1–100, default 1)
image_urlNoOptional public image URL for the cert design
usd_amountYesCertificate face value in USD (positive)
descriptionNoOptional descriptive text shown to the customer
token_addressYesERC-20 loyalty token address (must belong to the agent's merchant)
expires_in_daysNoValidity period in days (omit for no expiry)
points_per_dollarNoOptional override of program rate (e.g. 10 = 10 tokens per $1). Defaults to program's points_per_dollar.
max_redemption_percentNoMax % of any future purchase the customer can pay with these tokens (5–100). Default 50.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the unique code generation, customer redemption via QR/code, and on-chain minting by the merchant – meaningful lifecycle context beyond the simple 'create' action. It does not cover failure modes or permissions, but adds solid insight into how the certificate is used.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by relevant use cases. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant schema repetition.

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?

The description explains the business flow and use cases but omits the return value structure (e.g., certificate ID, redemption code), which is important since no output schema is provided. It also does not mention batching behavior or limits, though the schema covers these. Overall it is adequate but leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's response.

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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the redemption code and on-chain minting but does not elaborate on parameter interactions or defaults beyond what the schema states. It meets the baseline without adding significant extra value.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('gift / welcome certificate') and differentiates it from siblings by detailing the UDS-style unique 6-character redemption code and the redemption/minting flow. This clearly distinguishes it from tools like create_reward or list_gift_certificates.

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 provides clear use cases ('welcome bonuses, promo campaigns, partnership gifts') which signal when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for selection.

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

All Loyal Spark 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes, such as mint_loyalty_tokens vs earn_points (both mint loyalty tokens with fee bundles), create_loyalty_program vs register_loyalty_program (deploy vs register existing token), and activate_loyalty_program vs update_program_status (both manage program status). Some pairs like check_voucher_status and list_gift_certificates also overlap on voucher/certificate tracking. However, descriptions are detailed enough to reduce ambiguity for careful agents.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_reward, list_loyalty_programs). Subtle deviations include earn_points vs mint_loyalty_tokens (different verbs for similar mint operations) and use_voucher vs redeem_reward (different verb styles for redemption). Overall, the naming is predictable and understandable.

Tool Count2/5

With 39 tools, this server is bloated for a loyalty platform. The addition of Bazaar discovery/payment tools and report management expands the scope, but many tools overlap or cover minor variations (e.g., two workflow planners: generate_program_defaults and get_program_workflow_status). A leaner set of 20-25 tools would be more appropriate.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the full loyalty program lifecycle: creation, activation, registration, token minting/transfer, rewards, gift certificates, vouchers, offers, customer export, analytics, and reports. Notable gaps include no CRUD for personalized offers (only create), no edit capability for rewards (only status changes), and no direct function to list all vouchers by merchant (only status check by code). These are minor workarounds.

Resources