groupon-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.5
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action and resource: healthcheck is meta, search/get deals and list categories are read-only, while view/purchase/clear cart cover cart management. There is no overlap between searching for deals and fetching a specific deal, and cart operations are clearly separated.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tools consistently use the groupon_ prefix with lowercase snake_case. Most follow a verb_noun pattern (search_deals, get_deal, list_categories, view_cart, clear_cart), but 'purchase' and 'healthcheck' deviate slightly, with 'purchase' lacking an explicit object and 'healthcheck' being a compound noun.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools is well-scoped for a Groupon server that covers deal discovery and cart management. Each tool serves a clear function, and the count is neither too sparse nor overwhelming.
Completeness3/5
The core workflow of searching deals, viewing a deal, adding to cart, and viewing/clearing the cart is covered. However, there is no way to list valid divisions/cities for search, no ability to remove a single item from the cart, and no update quantity operation, which are notable gaps for a shopping-oriented server.
Average 4.4/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 5 of 5 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 35 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 9, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by explaining the compact vs full detail behavior and listing the fields included in the compact view. This goes beyond the annotation, providing useful expectations about response granularity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every phrase earns its place without redundancy, making it concise and well-structured.
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?
For a simple fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers the main parameter, the default vs compact behavior, and the compact field list. It leaves the exact shape of 'full detail' unspecified, but given the readOnlyHint and schema richness, it is adequately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description adds minor nuance (e.g., dealId accepts full URL, compact list of fields), but the schema already carries the semantic weight, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches a single Groupon deal using a permalink slug or full URL, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_deals. The verb 'Fetch' and resource 'single Groupon deal' are unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It implies usage when you already have a deal slug/URL, but does not explicitly mention alternatives like search_deals for finding deals. The context is clear but lacks explicit when-not or exclusions, so it falls short of a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds the behavioral detail that setting compact=true returns a slim {title, url, children} tree, which is consistent with the annotation and provides useful context beyond it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with the main action first and the optional flag explanation second. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
For a simple read-only listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return type and the effect of the compact flag. It could optionally describe the full payload structure, but the current description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides complete documentation for the single boolean parameter 'compact' (100% coverage). The description repeats the compact=true behavior but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly identifies the resource ('Groupon's category taxonomy tree'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_deals and get_deal, which operate on deals rather than categories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a category hierarchy is needed, which is clear context given the sibling tool names. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is disclosed. The description adds the version detail, but no other behavioral traits (e.g., response format, error conditions) are described. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not extensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the core purpose. The second sentence adds valuable roadmap context without any wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple health check tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It states what it does, what it reports (running state and version), and provides context about the tool's phase, making it fully sufficient for an agent.
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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description does not need to add parameter details; baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no additional info is necessary.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reports that the groupon-mcp server is running and its version. The verb 'Report' and specific resource 'groupon-mcp server' make the purpose unambiguous, and it is clearly distinct from the sibling deal-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The second sentence 'Deal-read tools arrive in a later phase' provides context that this health check is the primary use for now, implicitly guiding the agent to use this tool for server status checks rather than expecting deal functionality. It lacks an explicit exclusion or alternative, but the implication is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond that by explaining the dual-mode behavior (query vs. browse) and the compact output format, which helps set expectations without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every phrase adds value (search vs. browse, compact flag, city scope). There is no redundant or filler text.
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?
For a 5-parameter, all-optional search tool with no output schema, the description covers the key usage modes and provides examples. It doesn't address pagination or result ordering, but the schema covers limit/offset and the tool is simple enough that the description is largely sufficient.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that omitting query triggers a browse mode and that compact=true is recommended for browsing, which goes beyond the individual parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches or browses Groupon deals for a city/division, distinguishing it from siblings like groupon_get_deal (single deal) and groupon_list_categories (categories). It gives specific usage examples for search phrases and clarifies the browse mode, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance on when to use search vs. browse (pass query for search, omit for browse) and recommends compact=true for browsing. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it lacks the explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance seen in higher-scoring examples.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the session requirements: 'GROUPON_SESSION_COOKIE, or the fetchproxy browser bridge signed into groupon.com.' This goes beyond the annotation's safety read-only indication.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. It is concise without omitting important prerequisite 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?
For a simple view operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does and prerequisites. It could mention response format (e.g., list of items), but the tool's simplicity makes it less critical.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema is trivially covered. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details, and there is no need for additional parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'View the items currently in your signed-in Groupon cart.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like groupon_clear_cart and groupon_purchase, which have different actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates a prerequisite: 'Requires a Groupon session (GROUPON_SESSION_COOKIE, or the fetchproxy browser bridge signed into groupon.com).' It provides context for when this tool is usable, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While annotations already indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint: false), the description adds substantial behavioral context: the dry-run safety mechanism, the removal of every line item, and the post-removal verification that the cart is empty. This goes beyond the structured annotation data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the primary action and then efficiently explains the two modes of operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, required authentication context (signed-in), the destructive vs. safe modes, and the verification step. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke appropriately.
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 schema already describes confirm as 'Must be true to proceed... returns a preview', but the description extends this by explaining what the dry run lists and that confirm triggers a re-read to verify emptiness. This adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the schema's basic preview note.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Remove'), a resource ('Groupon cart'), and scope ('ALL items'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like view_cart (which reads) and purchase (which transacts).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on how to use the tool safely, explaining the dry-run behavior without confirm:true and the actual removal with confirm:true. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the usage scenario is obvious and the confirm parameter is thoroughly explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key behaviors beyond the readOnlyHint: it previews changes without confirm, re-reads the cart after adding, returns a checkout URL, and cannot complete the order. These are not implied by the annotations and significantly inform the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and presents the dry-run/confirm logic and limitation clearly without redundant phrases.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has moderate complexity with a dry-run mode and required confirmation, but the description covers the behavior, the return value (checkout URL), and the payment constraint. It also directs users to groupon_get_deal for optionId, making it sufficiently complete given the schema richness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all five parameters. The description adds context about the dry-run/confirm flow, but doesn't add per-parameter details beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Add a Groupon deal option to your cart', clearly identifying the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search and view_cart, and explicitly states it cannot place the order.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the dry-run vs confirmed execution modes ('WITHOUT confirm:true this is a DRY RUN... WITH confirm:true it adds the item...'), and clarifies that payment is completed externally. It also notes the limitation ('It CANNOT place the order') and points to native checkout as an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![groupon-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chrischall/groupon-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chrischall/groupon-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![groupon-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chrischall/groupon-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chrischall/groupon-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/chrischall/groupon-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server