Moatless

Redeem a founder code

redeem_fee_code

Redeems a founder code, which lowers the platform's fee on the user's sales for good. Each user can redeem one.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "input": "<input>",
      "id": "<id>",
      "context": "<context>"
    },
    "name": "redeem_fee_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`input`	Yes
`context`	Yes	Explain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. Never include personal data, such as names, email addresses or message text; refer to people by role, such as "the user" or "a buyer".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 10, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / context

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Explain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. Never include personal data, such as names, email addresses or message text; refer to people by role, such as \"the user\" or \"a buyer\".",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "input",
-  "id"
-]New value: +[
+  "input",
+  "id",
+  "context"
+]

First observedOct 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description is not on the hook for the safety profile. It still contributes two non-obvious behavioral facts the annotations don't carry: the fee reduction is permanent ('for good') and redemption is limited to one per user. It leaves out failure behavior for invalid or already-used codes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core effect placed in the first clause where an agent will read it. The quota rule follows immediately as a natural qualifier rather than being buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter state-changing tool with no output schema, the description covers the 'what and why' but omits the operational details an agent needs: what a successful redemption returns, whether the effect is immediately visible on the user's fees, and how to report an invalid or duplicate code. The unexplained `id` parameter is the largest hole.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description needed to compensate and does not. It never explains the `id` UUID parameter (user id? code id? request id?) or what format the founder `code` string takes, and it is silent on the required telemetry `context` field that the schema itself documents.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description pairs a specific verb ('Redeems') with a specific resource ('a founder code') and states the concrete effect: it permanently lowers the platform's fee on the user's sales. That is enough to separate it from the coupon-management siblings (create_coupon, discontinue_coupon) without naming them, though no sibling is explicitly contrasted.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers you call this when a user supplies a founder code, and the sentence 'Each user can redeem one' establishes a meaningful per-user quota constraint. There is no guidance on what to do when a code is invalid or already redeemed, and no pointer to an alternative path for non-founder discounts.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Moatless tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?