Ozon MCP

get_points

Retrieve points by type (Ozon points, miles, WOW points, stars) with amounts, burning points, and per-store seller bonuses. Check balances and expiration details to manage rewards.

Instructions

Points by type (Ozon points, miles, WOW points, stars) with amounts, burning points, and per-store seller bonuses.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_points"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`burning`	No
`by_type`	No
`seller_bonuses`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.1Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the returned content but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or any other behavioral traits. The tool name implies a getter, but the description itself does not clarify side effects or safety.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is short and free of filler, front-loading the resource type and enumerating the returned categories. It is slightly fragmentary rather than a full sentence, but every phrase adds useful information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the low complexity of a zero-parameter read tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for invoking the tool. It lists the main content areas, though it omits any usage context or explicit read-only statement, which are not critical for a simple getter.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description does not need to compensate for missing schema information, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 clearly identifies the resource (points) and the specific data returned: points by type with amounts, burning points, and per-store seller bonuses. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from siblings like get_cart or get_finances, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_finances, purchases, or list_orders. The description only states what data is returned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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