get_coupon_issuanceRetrieve the current status and immutable commercial details of an issued coupon code by issuance ID. Use it to verify code state and terms before redemption or reconciliation.
Read the current state and immutable commercial details of an individual issued code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issuance_id | Yes | Issuance ID returned by create_coupon_issuance. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and repeatability profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: the response mixes mutable "current state" with "immutable commercial details." It says nothing about behavior when the ID does not exist or about permissions.
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?
One sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and carrying the key mutable/immutable distinction in a compact clause. The only weakness is the slightly indirect phrasing "issued code" where "issuance" would tie back more directly to the parameter name.
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?
This is a one-parameter read-only lookup with full annotation coverage and no output schema, so no return-value documentation is required. Between the annotations and the description's note about current state versus immutable commercial details, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only not-found behavior is unaddressed.
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%, and the single issuance_id parameter is documented in the schema as "Issuance ID returned by create_coupon_issuance," which already establishes the linkage to the sibling that creates it. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier or its format.
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 opens with a specific verb ("Read") and a specific resource ("an individual issued code"), so an agent knows this is a single-entity lookup rather than a list or quote operation. It stops short of naming a sibling to contrast with, but the scope 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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives such as find_eligible_coupons, get_coupon_operation, or quote_single_coupon. The word "individual" loosely implies a single-record retrieval as opposed to a search, but the agent must infer this.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.