List your previously submitted reports. Allows reviewing past reports, checking status (new/reviewed/done), and identifying what still needs attention.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results 1-50 (default: 20) | |
| status | No | Filter by status: new, reviewed, done (optional) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context by stating that the tool lists the user's own reports, shows statuses, and helps identify attention items. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, side effects (likely none), or output format details. The read-only nature is implied by 'List' but not explicitly confirmed.
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?
The description is two sentences, with the first sentence delivering the primary purpose ('List your previously submitted reports') and the second adding valuable use-case context. There is no redundant wording or filler.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description adequately covers core purpose, scope ('your previously submitted reports'), and the utility of status checks. It could be more explicit about return structure or pagination, but for a basic list tool, it is sufficiently 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?
The input schema provides full coverage for both parameters: 'limit' (with range/default) and 'status' (with allowed values). The description adds slight extra context by restating the status values ('new/reviewed/done'), but it does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description states the verb+resource+scope explicitly: 'List your previously submitted reports.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_rewards and list_gift_certificates by focusing on the user's own reports. Mentioning statuses ('new/reviewed/done') reinforces the tool's specific purpose.
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?
The description provides clear usage context: 'Allows reviewing past reports, checking status, and identifying what still needs attention.' This implies when to use the tool—when you need to review your own reports and their statuses. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'for deleting, use delete_report,' although the sibling list makes it inferable.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.