Skip to main content
Glama

excalibur-mcp

by io.github.lonniev
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

excalibur_mint_coupon

Create a new operator-owned discount coupon.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe catchy code patrons type to redeem (operator-scoped uniqueness).
dpop_tokenNo
total_usesNoAggregate cap across all patrons (default None = unlimited).
valid_fromYesISO-8601 datetime when the coupon becomes active.
valid_untilYesISO-8601 datetime when the coupon expires.
uses_per_patronNoHow many tool calls one patron can claim the discount on (default 1; pass null/None for unlimited within the window).
discount_percentYesPercentage off the base price (0-100).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / discount_percent / description
      Added value: +"Percentage off the base price (0-100)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Added value: +"The catchy code patrons type to redeem\n(operator-scoped uniqueness)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / total_uses / description
      Added value: +"Aggregate cap across all patrons (default None =\nunlimited)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / uses_per_patron / description
      Added value: +"How many tool calls one patron can claim the\ndiscount on (default 1; pass null/None for unlimited\nwithin the window)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / valid_from / description
      Added value: +"ISO-8601 datetime when the coupon becomes active."
    • addedInput schema / properties / valid_until / description
      Added value: +"ISO-8601 datetime when the coupon expires."
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'operator-owned' but does not explain side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error behavior. The description is too vague for a mutation tool, providing minimal context beyond the basic action.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy, making it appropriately concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having 7 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal and lacks critical contextual details such as ownership implications, authentication requirements, or lifecycle context. Compared to similar tools, this description under-delivers for a creation tool with no annotations.

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 86%, which is high, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 'Create a new operator-owned discount coupon' clearly specifies a creation action, the resource (discount coupon), and ownership (operator-owned). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'excalibur_update_coupon' and 'excalibur_delete_coupon' by focusing on creation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage via the verb 'Create' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'excalibur_update_coupon' or 'excalibur_redeem_coupon'. It lacks explicit context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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

All excalibur-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources