Mutações em cupons Guru. Ações: create (data); update (id + data); delete (id); duplicate (id); set_activation (id + data, ativa/desativa).
[Flattened action: delete]
Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| ids | No | ||
| data | No | ||
| account | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare destructiveHint=false, but the description explicitly advertises 'delete (id)' and '[Flattened action: delete]'. This is a direct annotation contradiction. The description also fails to disclose irreversibility, bulk-failure behavior, account requirements, or what happens to the coupon.
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 short but not well-focused: it lists all coupon mutation actions even though this is a delete tool, and the cryptic '[Flattened action: delete]' adds confusion rather than clarity. The bulk-support sentence is the only clearly relevant structural element.
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 write/delete tool with four parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits return values, error behavior, bulk semantics (all-or-nothing vs partial), account usage, and any prerequisites. The provided information covers only the bare essentials.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'id' to delete and mentions 'ids' for bulk execution, but it does not explain the 'account' parameter, whether 'data' is accepted or ignored for delete, or which parameters are required. This is only partial coverage of the four parameters.
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 does mention 'delete (id)' and '[Flattened action: delete]', so the intended action is discernible. However, it also lists create, update, duplicate, and set_activation actions, making the specific purpose of this delete-specific tool ambiguous and failing to distinguish it from the sibling coupon write tools.
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?
There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like guru_coupons_write_create, guru_coupons_write_update, or guru_coupons_write_duplicate. The only usage hint is 'Bulk support: accepts ids', which does not compensate for the lack of alternative guidance.
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 tool names themselves are distinct (e.g., guru_subscriptions_get vs guru_subscriptions_activities), but the descriptions for each resource are identical except for a '[Flattened action: X]' tag, listing all possible actions. This repetition can confuse agents into selecting the wrong tool, especially since many tools share the same description body. The naming is clear but the descriptive overlap undermines disambiguation.
The majority of tools follow a consistent pattern: guru_<resource>_<action> for reads and guru_<resource>_write_<action> for writes. However, there are outliers like 'authenticate', 'connect', 'marketplace', 'report_bug', etc., which break the pattern. Within the Guru API itself, the naming is highly predictable, but the occasional non-Guru tool reduces overall consistency.
With 101 tools, the server is grossly over-scoped. The API has been fragmented into a separate tool for every action across many resources (e.g., subscriptions alone have 15+ tools). This is far beyond the typical MCP server size and makes the tool list overwhelming and impractical for agents to navigate. The extreme granularity offers no benefit over a smaller, well-organized set.
The tool set covers a wide range of operations: CRUD for contacts, subscriptions, transactions, products, coupons, webhooks, and more, including write actions like refunds, chargebacks, and subscription modifications. The domain appears well-covered, though some resources lack create operations (e.g., no create subscription) and there are a few gaps like missing explicit update for transactions. Overall, the coverage is thorough for the stated API surface.