foran_couponsRetrieve available coupon codes, discount details, and minimum order requirements for a logged-in customer, filtered by grocery or restaurant module.
Coupons the logged-in customer can use (code, discount, minimum order).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| module | No | mart = groceries and daily needs; bites = restaurant food. | mart |
| session_key | Yes | The session_key returned by foran_login. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are scoped to the authenticated customer and lists the returned fields, but says nothing about expiry, whether coupons are auto-applied at checkout, or how many are returned. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but thin.
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?
A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the return fields parenthetically clarified. Nothing is redundant, though the brevity comes at the cost of any usage framing.
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 two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and annotations present, the definition gives enough to call it correctly and even previews the response shape. Missing only eligibility/expiry nuance and any indication of how the coupons relate to order placement.
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%, so both session_key and the mart/bites module enum are already documented in the schema. The description contributes only the phrase "logged-in customer," which gestures at session_key without adding format or behavior details beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific resource (coupons) and constrains it to those the logged-in customer can actually redeem, then enumerates the returned fields (code, discount, minimum order). No sibling tool deals with coupons, so an agent can route here without confusion, though it distinguishes itself by absence of competition rather than explicit contrast.
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?
"Can use" implies applicability filtering by the logged-in customer, which hints that this is a pre-checkout eligibility lookup. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of relation to foran_place_order or foran_cart_view, and no exclusions or prerequisites stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.