Fuul MCP Server

list_incentives

Lists draft incentives for a project, merging published trigger IDs to provide a combined view of configuration drafts and published triggers.

Instructions

Lists draft incentives with published trigger IDs merged by ref. Calls GET /api/v1/projects/:projectId/incentives and GET .../customizations. Each item: slug, draft_conversion_id, published_conversion_id (null for now), draft, published (null), triggers[] (scoped merge). Example: {"project_id":""}.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_incentives"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes	Project UUID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.12.0May 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Describes the read-only nature (calls two GET endpoints) and the merge logic. Discloses that published_conversion_id is null for now. However, missing details on error handling, rate limits, or required permissions. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but is adequate.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It efficiently conveys the structure and merge behavior. Minor technical jargon could be simplified, but overall 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 listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the return fields (slug, draft_conversion_id, published_conversion_id, draft, published, triggers) and the merge process. It provides an example. While it could mention pagination or sorting, it is fairly complete for its complexity.

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 only parameter (project_id) is well-documented in the schema with format and description. The tool description adds an example but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate due to full schema coverage.

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 it lists draft incentives with merged published trigger IDs, specifies the HTTP endpoints, and details the structure of each item (slug, draft_conversion_id, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like get_incentive and create_incentive by providing specific merge behavior and field definitions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. Sibling tools are listed but not compared.

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