Azure Pricing MCP Server

get_customer_discount

Retrieve Azure pricing discounts for specific customers to calculate accurate cloud service costs.

Instructions

Get customer discount information. Returns default 10% discount for all customers.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_customer_discount"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`customer_id`	No	Customer ID (optional, defaults to 'default' customer)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.3.0Feb 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return behavior ('Returns default 10% discount for all customers'), which is valuable context beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and return behavior. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and the return value, but for a tool that seems mismatched with its Azure-focused siblings, more context about its role would improve completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents the optional customer_id parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but it implies the tool works with or without the parameter by mentioning 'all customers', which aligns with the schema's optional default.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('customer discount information'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, which are all Azure-related while this tool appears to be customer-focused, so it misses explicit sibling distinction.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or in what context it's appropriate. Given the sibling tools are Azure cost/price-related, this tool seems out of place, but the description doesn't clarify its relationship or usage scenarios.

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

Deploy Server