update_program_status
Update program status in database after onchain activation/pause
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | New status: active, paused, or inactive | |
| token_address | Yes | Token contract address |
Loyal Spark
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behaviors. It only states the action ('update program status') without detailing side effects, permissions, reversibility, or return values. The 'after onchain activation/pause' hint adds some context but doesn't cover the mutation's implications.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action. No wasted words, and it communicates the essential purpose clearly.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (2 params, full schema coverage, no output schema), the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral disclosure, making it less complete compared to similar tools with richer context.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters documented (status and token_address). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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 verb (update), resource (program status), and context (after onchain activation/pause). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_program_config by specifying it updates status in the database, not configuration.
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?
The phrase 'after onchain activation/pause' provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
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.
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.