Update report status to 'reviewed' or 'done'. Use 'done' when the action items have been completed. Use 'reviewed' to acknowledge a report.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | New status: reviewed or done | |
| report_id | Yes | UUID of the report |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It confirms this is a mutation operation and explains the semantics of the two statuses, but it does not mention permissions, side effects, or whether the operation is reversible. This is adequate but leaves gaps.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately useful distinction between statuses. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
For a simple 2-parameter update with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the purpose and the meaning of the statuses. It could mention return behavior or error conditions, but given the tool's simplicity, those are minor omissions.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining when to use each status value ('done' vs 'reviewed'), which is more meaningful than the schema's simple 'New status: reviewed or done'.
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 clearly states the action ('update'), the resource ('report status'), and the exact allowed values ('reviewed' or 'done'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_program_status and update_reward_status by specifically targeting report status.
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 explicit guidance on when to choose each status: 'done' for completed action items and 'reviewed' to acknowledge a report. While it doesn't discuss alternative tools or exclusion criteria, the context for using this tool's statuses is clear.
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.