Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

myhotlunchbox-mcp

by chrischall

mhlb_remove_coupon

Remove the coupon currently applied to the account, with a required confirmation step to prevent accidental changes.

Instructions

Remove the coupon currently applied to the account. 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). NOTE: this write is UNVERIFIED — its request shape was derived from the web app’s compiled API client but has not been exercised against a live account. Inspect the confirmation preview before approving it.

Input Schema

TableJSON 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.1
    • 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"
      +}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), the description discloses a critical behavioral fact: the write is UNVERIFIED, its request shape was derived from compiled API client code, and it has not been exercised against a live account. It also warns the agent to inspect the preview before approving, which is significant transparent context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the essential confirmation mechanics and a necessary risk warning. Every sentence carries required information, and there is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description sufficiently outlines the expected two-step behavior and the confirmToken handoff. It references MCP_CONFIRM_MODE and warns to inspect the preview. It does not spell out edge cases like 'no coupon applied,' but the confirmation flow and unverified-write warning cover the most important operational context.

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 confirmToken parameter is already richly documented in the input schema. The description adds value by explaining the two-phase return behavior—first call returns preview and confirmToken, repeat call with token proceeds—which gives the parameter operational meaning beyond the schema text.

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 a clear, specific statement: 'Remove the coupon currently applied to the account.' This identifies the action (remove), the resource (coupon), and the scope (currently applied to the account), making it unambiguous and inherently distinct from related siblings like apply_coupon or get_coupon.

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 gives explicit, actionable usage guidance for the confirmation flow: prompt when the client supports it, otherwise first call returns preview/confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools, but the unique action and 'currently applied' scope make the intended use clear.

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