Enable an addon on an entity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Entity ID | |
| addonType | Yes | web_search | code_execution | image_gen | image_input | streaming | web_scrape | web_screenshot | web_extract |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the core action (enable) but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, or what happens if the addon is already enabled. This is minimal but not misleading.
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?
The description is a single clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the action and target.
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?
While the tool is simple, the description lacks any explanation of the enable operation's effects, return behavior, or relationship to other addon tools. The schema covers parameters but no output schema exists, so the description should provide more context.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters ('id' and 'addonType' listing valid values). The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Enable') and clearly identifies the resource ('an addon on an entity'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'subfeed_disable_addon' by the opposing action, and the scope (entity) is explicit.
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?
The description provides no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'subfeed_disable_addon' or 'subfeed_list_addons'. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusionary conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a clear, distinct operation: entity CRUD, addon management, discovery, interaction, and registration. While chat, invoke, and webhook all involve communication, their descriptions clearly differentiate entity chat from public invocation and webhook payloads.
All tools share the 'subfeed_' prefix and use snake_case, with most following a verb_noun pattern (create_entity, delete_entity, list_addons). A few use bare verbs (chat, invoke, register) or noun-only (webhook), but the pattern is still recognizable and predictable.
15 tools is at the upper edge of the ideal range, but it matches the server's broad scope covering entities, addons, models, discovery, and user registration. Each tool serves a distinct purpose and none feel redundant.
The surface covers full entity lifecycle (create, get, update, delete, publish), addon management (enable, disable, list), entity discovery, and user registration. Minor gaps like an explicit unpublish or webhook management can be worked around via update_entity or standalone webhook sending.