Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

groupon-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

groupon_clear_cart

Destructive

Remove all items from a signed-in Groupon cart, then verify the cart is empty. Requires user confirmation before clearing.

Instructions

Remove ALL items from your signed-in Groupon cart. Once confirmed it removes every line item and re-reads the cart to verify it is empty. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmTokenNoONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.
expectedOptionIdsNoThe optionIds the preview listed. When given, the clear is refused if the cart's line items are no longer exactly these (in any order).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.8
    • addedInput schema / properties / expectedOptionIds
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The optionIds the preview listed. When given, the clear is refused if the cart's line items are no longer exactly these (in any order).",
+  "items": {
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmToken
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 \"confirmation-required\" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  4. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Although annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the description adds real context beyond them: the confirmation gate, the preview/confirmToken two-phase protocol, and the post-clear re-read that verifies the cart is empty. That is precisely the behavioral detail an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the operation and then the confirmation mechanics; nothing is redundant. The final sentence is dense and slightly overstuffed with protocol detail, which keeps it just shy of a 5.

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 zero-required-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and annotations that already cover the safety profile, the description supplies everything missing: what gets destroyed, the confirmation requirement, the fallback mechanics, and post-condition verification.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself fully documents both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by explaining the flow that gives those parameters meaning: phase 1 returns a preview plus confirmToken, and only a repeat call with the token proceeds.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Remove ALL items from your signed-in Groupon cart') and scopes the operation explicitly to every line item. This cleanly separates it from groupon_view_cart (read) and groupon_purchase (checkout) without needing to name them.

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?

It states the operating context clearly (signed-in cart, all-items removal, user must confirm first) and describes the two-step fallback flow. It never explicitly names an alternative sibling or a when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools