create_promo_codeCreate a discount/promo code (percent or fixed) on a live event or an unclaimed draft. Provide either event_id, or draft_id + edit_token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | ||
| enabled | No | ||
| draft_id | No | ||
| event_id | No | ||
| max_uses | No | ||
| starts_at | No | ||
| edit_token | No | ||
| expires_at | No | ||
| discount_type | Yes | ||
| discount_value | Yes | ||
| applicable_classes | 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 description aligns with annotations (not read-only, not destructive) by stating it creates a promo code. It adds the behavioral nuance that the code can be applied to a live event or draft. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., duplicate code handling, rate limits) beyond what annotations provide.
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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the main action and key parameter choices. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy.
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 creation tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential intent and identifier options but omits details about optional parameters (e.g., applicable_classes, timing). Given the complexity, it provides a minimal viable understanding but lacks completeness for nuanced use.
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?
The description only adds semantics for event_id, draft_id, edit_token, and discount_type (percent or fixed), but the schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The remaining 7 parameters (enabled, max_uses, starts_at, expires_at, discount_value, applicable_classes) are not explained, leaving a significant gap.
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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'discount/promo code', and specifies the context (on a live event or unclaimed draft). It distinguishes from sibling tools like bulk_create_promo_codes and create_promo_profile by indicating the target entity.
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 provides explicit guidance on using either event_id or draft_id + edit_token, which is helpful. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over siblings like bulk_create_promo_codes or update_promo_code, nor does it cover prerequisites like authentication or ownership.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, particularly the generic create_production_item vs specific add_* tools (e.g., add_role, add_meal). This creates ambiguity, as agents may struggle to choose between generic and specific counterparts. Additionally, similar verbs like 'add', 'create', and 'bulk_create' blur boundaries.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (add_guest, list_events), but there are inconsistencies: 'bulk_create_promo_codes' instead of 'create_bulk_promo_codes', mix of 'list' and 'get' (list_events vs get_account_status), and varied verbs like 'set', 'update', 'delete', 'archive', 'unarchive', 'reorder'. Overall pattern recognizable but not uniform.
115 tools is excessive for most domains, including event management. While the domain is complex, this granularity overwhelms agents and makes selection difficult. The tool count far exceeds typical well-scoped servers (3-15), indicating poor abstraction.
The tool set covers an extensive range of event management activities: events, tickets, guests, affiliates, discounts, production items, forms, communities, sponsors, and more. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct event deletion, only cancellation), but overall the surface is comprehensive for the stated purpose.