Delete a coupon. Cascades to all patron redemptions.
Any chain step referencing the deleted coupon_id becomes a no-op (the constraint returns neutral on unknown ids) — the Studio surfaces orphan references as warnings.
RESTRICTED to operator — requires proof.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coupon_id | Yes | ||
| dpop_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses cascading to all patron redemptions, no-op behavior for references, and operator restriction. Lacks warning about irreversibility, but annotations absent so description carries burden.
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?
Very concise: two sentences plus restriction line. Front-loaded with action, no 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?
Covers side effects and auth, but missing preconditions (coupon existence, state) and error scenarios. Output schema present reduces need for return description.
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?
No parameter descriptions in schema (0% coverage). Description does not explain dpop_token or its relation to 'requires proof'. Agent lacks guidance on authentication parameter.
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?
Explicitly states 'Delete a coupon' with clear verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like update, mint, forget by describing cascade behavior.
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?
Mentions restriction to operator with proof, but does not contrast with sibling tools like cypher_forget_coupon or when to use this hard delete vs soft alternatives.
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.
The set is heavily clustered: audit_why_exists, explain_capability, suggest_capability_why, and authorize_capability_why all answer the same basic 'why does this capability exist?' question and differ mainly in provenance/authority. Many status and provenance tools (adoption_status, session_status, service_status, issue_provenance, pr_provenance, symbol_provenance, service_provenance) also blur together without close reading.
The overwhelming majority of tools follow a predictable cypher_verb_noun pattern in snake_case, which provides strong naming consistency across a very large surface. Minor deviations such as cypher_oracle_about, cypher_oracle_how_to_join, cypher_which_service_handles, and cypher_what_realizes_capability are noticeable but do not break the overall pattern.
112 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP server, regardless of how well the clusters are named; it heavily burdens tool selection, context, and agent discovery. The set spans unrelated domains including payments, coupons, credentials, provenance, issues, patents, queries, pricing, and NOS transformations, which should be split into separate focused servers.
Many domain clusters have strong lifeycle coverage: COUPs have mint/list/update/delete/redeem, credentials have courier delivery/box status/update/delete/forget, and the named-query catalog has full CRUD plus published-tool management. Minor gaps exist—e.g., no generic list_services, no delete for capabilities, and no close/resolve action for issues—but most flows have no outright dead end.