Retrieves coupon details by number and series for a given organization. Use it to look up coupon information and apply it in customer interactions.
Информация о купоне по номеру. Где взять ID: organizationId → organizations__get_organizations. Троттлинг MCP-сервера (не лимит iikoCloud): не чаще 10 запрос(ов) за 60 с — кэшируйте результат в диалоге.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies MCP-server throttling (10 requests per 60 seconds) and recommends caching results in the conversation. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent manage rate limits.
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?
The description is brief and efficient, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence. The additional guidance on organizationId and throttling is relevant and not verbose. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary detail.
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 simple read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose, a key parameter source, and throttling. However, it does not explain the 'series' parameter, nor does it describe the return format or potential error conditions. Given the low schema coverage, these gaps leave the description only moderately complete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It implicitly explains 'number' as the coupon number and tells where to get organizationId, but it completely omits the 'series' parameter. The nested 'request' structure is also not clarified. This partial coverage is insufficient for a 3-parameter schema.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: providing coupon information by number ('Информация о купоне по номеру'). It specifies the resource (coupon) and the key identifier (number). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like discounts__get_coupon_series, the purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.
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 description provides practical guidance on obtaining a required parameter (organizationId) by referencing organizations__get_organizations, and advises throttling and caching. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it give exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.