lemonsqueezy_list_discountsList discounts, optionally filtered to one store. API: GET /discounts (filter[store_id]).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | Comma-separated related resources to sideload (JSON:API include=), e.g. 'store,variant'. | |
| store_id | No | Filter to a single store id. | |
| page_size | No | Results per page (JSON:API page[size], max 100). Default 10. | |
| page_number | No | Page number (JSON:API page[number]). Default 1. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true. The description adds the API endpoint and filter parameter, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination or default values beyond schema.
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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.
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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and filter. It could mention the JSON:API format, but overall it is fairly complete.
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 100%, so all parameters are described. The description reiterates the store filter but adds no new semantics beyond the existing parameter descriptions.
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 lists discounts, optionally filtered by store. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_customers or list_orders.
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 mentions optional filtering to one store, providing some usage context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or give exclusions.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (get vs list for each entity, plus specific write operations). Filtering parameters further distinguish list tools. No overlapping purposes.
All tools follow a consistent `lemonsqueezy_action_resource` pattern using lowercase and underscores. Actions are consistently get, list, create, cancel, or update.
18 tools cover a broad set of resources (customers, orders, stores, subscriptions, discounts, license keys, prices, products, invoices, variants, checkouts) for a comprehensive e-commerce platform. Each tool earns its place.
While reading (list/get) is well-covered for most resources, creation and deletion are missing for many core entities (customers, products, orders, etc.), which may force agents to rely on external processes. Only subscriptions and checkouts have write support.