remove_affiliate_codeRemove a ticket tier from an affiliate (disables their code if it was the last tier). Requires event_id + affiliate_id + ticket_class_id; you must be a host.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | Yes | ||
| affiliate_id | Yes | ||
| ticket_class_id | Yes |
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?
Annotations provide destructiveHint=true. The description adds the conditional code-disablement side-effect and the host requirement, which are beyond annotations. However, it does not detail the exact effect on the ticket tier (deletion vs disassociation) or clarify idempotency.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys action, side-effect, and prerequisites. It is front-loaded and concise, though slightly lacking in detail.
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 is destructive and lacks an output schema, the description should explain expected result, return status, error scenarios, and reversibility. It only covers basic operation, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It merely lists the three required parameter names without explaining their meaning or constraints. The agent gains no additional understanding beyond the schema itself.
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 action: 'Remove a ticket tier from an affiliate' and adds a specific side-effect (disables their code if it was the last tier). This distinctively differentiates from sibling tools like 'remove_affiliate' or 'delete_ticket_tier'.
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 lists prerequisites (requires event_id, affiliate_id, ticket_class_id; must be host) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_codes_from_profile' or 'revoke_affiliate_access'. No when-not-to-use or alternative references.
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.