Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Gameball MCP Server

Gameball MCP Server

by Ahmedelmonady
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

validateReferrerCode

Check if a referral code is valid and eligible for use. Optionally provide a customer ID to prevent self-referral.

Instructions

Get validate

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": {
      "referrerCode": "<referrerCode>"
    },
    "name": "validateReferrerCode"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
referrerCodeYesThe referral code to validate
forCustomerIdNoCustomer ID to prevent self-re

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

D1.3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are present, and the description "Get validate" reveals nothing about side effects, return values, error behavior, or the meaning of validation. The tool could be read-only or have side effects, but no information is disclosed.

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

Conciseness1/5

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

Extreme brevity is not conciseness; the description is under-specified and reads like a placeholder. It has no meaningful structure and fails to earn its place.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With no output schema, no annotations, and a 2-parameter input schema, the description must compensate but provides nothing. The tool's behavior, return format, and usage context are entirely absent.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions ('The referral code to validate' and 'Customer ID to prevent self-re'). Per rubric, the baseline is 3 even though the tool description adds no parameter-related value.

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

Purpose1/5

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

The description is simply "Get validate", which is vague and does not identify a specific action or resource. It fails to distinguish this tool from dozens of sibling tools (e.g., getCustomer, getCustomerReferrals).

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about validation scenarios or the role of forCustomerId.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools