Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

gifts_use_code

Destructive

Redeem a gift code to activate the associated gift or apply its value through the Aeza API.

Instructions

Gifts use code POST /gifts/by-code/{code}/use

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": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "gifts_use_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the code is consumed permanently, what happens on an already-used or invalid code, or what the call returns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short, but the first line duplicates the tool name verbatim and the second line is a raw route rather than agent-facing prose. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This is an irreversible, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, so the description carries a heavy burden. It provides no information about effects, failure modes, or results, leaving the agent under-informed before committing a one-way action.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required `code` parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. The `{code}` placeholder in the endpoint line only echoes that it is a path parameter, with no format, casing, or validation semantics.

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

Purpose2/5

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

"Gifts use code" essentially restates the tool name, and the only extra information is the raw endpoint line "POST /gifts/by-code/{code}/use". An agent can infer that a gift code is redeemed, but the description never says so in words, nor does it distinguish this from siblings like gifts_get_by_code or promo_giftcodes_use.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to guess whether this retrieves code details, validates a code, or actually consumes it, and when to prefer promo_giftcodes_use instead.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools