List RetailMeNot cash-back offers and return each store's cash-back rate for featured, top, and all deals.
List RetailMeNot cash-back offers. Returns the cash-back offers on RetailMeNot's cash-back hub (featured, top, and all cash-back offers) with each store's cash-back rate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return composition (featured, top, and all offers, each with its cash-back rate), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or whether the read requires auth.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and subject, followed by a compact statement of what the return contains. No filler or redundancy.
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?
With no output schema and no parameters, the description appropriately explains what comes back (offer tiers plus per-store cash-back rate). That covers the essentials for a parameterless read tool, though the absence of any pagination or breadth note leaves a small gap.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters (schema coverage 100% on an empty object), which earns the baseline 4. There is no parameter syntax for the description to add or omit.
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?
States a specific verb (list) and resource (RetailMeNot cash-back offers), and clarifies the scope as the cash-back hub broken into featured, top, and all offers. It is clearly distinct from siblings like retailmenot_store or retailmenot_category, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
No explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, and no named alternatives among the many retailmenot_* siblings (e.g., retailmenot_deal_events, retailmenot_stores). For a zero-parameter browse tool the intended use is implied — call it to retrieve cash-back offers — so this sits at the minimum-viable level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.