Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

promo_giftcodes_use

Destructive

Redeem a promotional gift code through the Aeza API to apply its associated benefit or credit to an account.

Instructions

Use giftcode POST /promo/giftcodes/{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": "promo_giftcodes_use"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
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 safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond echoing the endpoint: it never states that the code is permanently consumed, what happens if the code is invalid or already redeemed, or what errors surface. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Two short lines with the verb front-loaded; nothing is bloated, but the whole text is under-specified rather than concise, and the raw POST path is the most informative part, which suggests the prose is doing too little.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the definition should explain the effect of redeeming, irreversibility, and failure modes. None of that is present, leaving an agent unable to predict consequences before calling.

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 coverage is 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must carry the weight; it only hints via the {code} path placeholder that the value is a URL path segment. It does not say whether the code is case-sensitive, single-use, or how it is validated.

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?

"Use giftcode" essentially restates the tool name promo_giftcodes_use without saying what using a giftcode actually accomplishes (redeeming a promo code, crediting a balance, unlocking a bonus). The appended POST path confirms it is a redemption-style endpoint but adds no semantic verb. It also does nothing to distinguish it from the sibling gifts_use_code.

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 when to prefer this over the sibling code-redemption tool. The only cue is the bare endpoint path.

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