adopt_codes_to_profileReassign existing standalone promo codes into a discount profile — each adopted code takes the profile's discount but keeps its prior usage count. Codes already in a profile or linked to an affiliate are skipped. Max 100/call. Requires event_id + profile_id + code_ids; you must be a host.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code_ids | Yes | ||
| event_id | Yes | ||
| profile_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (which only indicate non-readonly, non-destructive), the description adds behavioral details: adopted codes keep prior usage count, skipped codes are not errors, and the call is limited to 100 codes. This provides meaningful transparency.
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 sentences, no wasted words. First sentence explains the core action, second adds constraints and prerequisites. Information is front-loaded and efficient.
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?
Given the tool has 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers behavior, constraints, and prerequisites well. It implicitly handles error cases by noting skipped codes. Some minor gaps (e.g., no mention of error responses) are acceptable for this level of complexity.
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 explains that code_ids must be 'standalone' promo codes and that they adopt the profile's discount while keeping usage. This adds semantics beyond the schema's basic field types and constraints.
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 tool reassigns standalone promo codes into a discount profile, preserving usage count. It distinguishes from siblings like add_codes_to_profile and remove_codes_from_profile by specifying 'standalone' and 'already in a profile' 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?
The description tells when to use (to adopt codes into a profile), lists constraints (max 100, requires host status), and mentions skipped cases (codes already in profile or linked to affiliate). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the context is clear enough.
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.