Skip to main content
Glama

optionality-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

optionality_update_coupon

Patch a coupon's editable fields.

Pass only the fields you want to change. To set a cap to unlimited (NULL in the schema), pass clear_uses_per_patron=true or clear_total_uses=true. Renaming the code is allowed — existing patron redemption rows survive (they key on coupon id).

RESTRICTED to operator — requires proof.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
coupon_idYes
dpop_tokenNo
total_usesNo
valid_fromNo
valid_untilNo
uses_per_patronNo
clear_total_usesNo
discount_percentNo
clear_uses_per_patronNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: it is a mutating operation (patch), renaming the code is allowed and preserves existing redemptions, and it requires operator authorization. It does not cover error behaviors or idempotency, but covers essential traits for safe invocation.

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 five sentences with no extraneous information. It front-loads the purpose, then provides usage guidelines, behavioral notes, and access restrictions efficiently.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema and the complexity of 10 parameters, the description covers the main points: partial update pattern, nullable cap clearing, renaming safety, and authorization. It could be improved by explaining parameter defaults or responses, but is mostly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions two boolean parameters ('clear_uses_per_patron', 'clear_total_uses') as examples, leaving 8 other parameters (e.g., 'dpop_token', 'valid_from', 'discount_percent') unexplained beyond their names. This is insufficient for correct usage.

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 'Patch a coupon's editable fields,' using a specific verb (patch) and resource (coupon). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like optionality_delete_coupon or optionality_mint_coupon by focusing on updating existing coupons.

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 description provides clear guidance: 'Pass only the fields you want to change' for partial updates, and special cases for setting caps to unlimited. It also states 'RESTRICTED to operator — requires proof,' indicating when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for other operations like deletion.

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

All optionality-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There is substantial overlap and confusion between multiple sets of tools. For example, `optionality_get_operator_onboarding_status` and `optionality_get_patron_onboarding_status` serve different identities but have a similar purpose that could be confusing. More critically, there are generic-named tools like `optionality_receive_credentials` and `optionality_receive_npub_proof` that both drain a relay mailbox in a very similar way, distinguished primarily by the type of token they return. The presence of both `optionality_session_status` and `optionality_service_status` is a major point of ambiguity, as both seem to check the health and configuration of the operator.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming convention is highly consistent, using a snake_case, verb_noun pattern (e.g., `list_journal`, `delete_journal`). The prefix `optionality_` is applied to all tools. The verb 'get' and 'list' are used predictably. Minor point deduction for a few outliers like `optionality_deal_scenario` and `optionality_judge_trade` which are domain-specific verbs that don't perfectly fit the CRUD pattern but are still clear in context.

Tool Count1/5

With 71 tools, this server is severely over-staffed. This indicates poor separation of concerns, likely bundling multiple distinct domains or services into a single surface. A tool count this high dramatically increases cognitive load and API surface area, making it difficult for an agent to find the correct tool.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers an enormous amount of functionality, including imaginative ownership-proof flows via Nostr DMs. However, the `check_balance`/`purchase_credits` flow appears incomplete without a `refund_credits` tool for operator support scenarios. While the server has a `restore_credits` tool, it requires authentication. Overall, the surface is individually creative but organizationally incoherent.

Resources