Fetch offers from a RetailMeNot deal event page using its slug, grouped into top deals and per-category sections.
Get a RetailMeNot deal event's offers. Returns one seasonal deal event page's offers grouped into the page's sections (top deals and per-category sections). Use a slug from /retailmenot/deal-events.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Event slug from /retailmenot/deal-events |
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 burden. It does disclose the return structure ('offers grouped into the page's sections (top deals and per-category sections)'), which is useful, but is silent on permissions, rate limits, and error behavior for a read tool. Moderate coverage with clear gaps.
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 compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the input-source note last. No filler, though it is not maximally dense.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input source, and return shape. The only gap is the absence of any note about error handling or the case of an invalid slug.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single slug parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only restates that the slug comes from /retailmenot/deal-events, adding no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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+resource ('Get a RetailMeNot deal event's offers') and further narrows scope to a single seasonal event page whose offers are grouped into sections. It is clearly distinguishable from the plural sibling retailmenot_deal_events, which it implicitly references as the slug source.
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 sentence 'Use a slug from /retailmenot/deal-events' gives the prerequisite and routes the agent to the sibling tool that supplies the input. It provides clear context but no explicit when-not or alternative-conditions guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.