remove_codes_from_profileRemove promo codes from a discount profile — 'detach' (default) keeps each code standalone; 'delete' removes unused codes but disables any with redemptions. Requires event_id + profile_id + code_ids; you must be a host.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | No | ||
| code_ids | Yes | ||
| event_id | Yes | ||
| profile_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 already set destructiveHint=true. The description adds behavioral specifics: 'delete' removes unused codes but disables any with redemptions, and 'detach' keeps codes standalone. This provides useful context beyond the annotation itself.
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 all critical information without redundant or extraneous content. Every clause adds value.
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 destructive tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, action semantics, and a key requirement (host role). It lacks details on return values or error handling, but for a removal operation, this is acceptable.
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 mentions the required parameters (event_id, profile_id, code_ids) and explains the 'action' enum values. However, it does not describe the format or constraints of individual parameters (e.g., code_ids max/min length), leaving some ambiguity.
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 uses specific verbs ('Remove'), identifies the resource ('promo codes from a discount profile'), and explains two distinct actions ('detach' vs 'delete'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like add_codes_to_profile or remove_affiliate_code.
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 explains when to use the tool (to remove codes from a profile), details the two action modes, and lists required parameters and a prerequisite (must be a host). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear.
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.