Create discount coupons for a NovaCRM store by specifying a code, discount type (fixed or percentage), value, and optional minimum purchase amount.
Cria um cupom de desconto.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Código do cupom (ex: BEMVINDO10) | |
| type | Yes | fixed = valor fixo em Reais; percentage = percentual | |
| value | Yes | Valor do desconto (Reais ou %, conforme o tipo) | |
| minPurchase | No | Valor mínimo de compra (padrão 0) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only says a coupon is created. It does not mention uniqueness constraints on the code, whether the coupon is instantly active, what happens on duplicate codes, or what the call returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and offers no other information. Appropriately brief, yet under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description should supply more context: the uniqueness rule for coupon codes, whether the coupon is store-scoped, and what the creation returns (e.g., id, code, status). It leaves an agent able to call the tool but not to predict its outcome.
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%, with each of the four parameters (code, type, value, minPurchase) documented in the schema, including an enum explanation for type. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
The description gives a clear verb ("Cria") plus a specific resource ("cupom de desconto"), so the agent immediately knows this tool creates a discount coupon. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like novacrm_list_coupons or novacrm_validate_coupon, but the create action is unambiguous.
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?
There is no indication of when to use this tool instead of alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., does the coupon code need to be unique?), and no mention of the sibling validate/list tools. The agent must infer all usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.