Request a pass or top-up and receive the x402 challenge when payment is required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | Yes | Stable logical purchase key | |
| organization_id | Yes | Active organization ID |
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 carries full burden. It does disclose a non-obvious behavioral trait: the call returns an x402 payment challenge rather than completing the purchase outright, and only conditionally ('when payment is required'). However, it doesn'tsay what happens when no payment is needed, whether any charge is created, or how the flow continues after the challenge.
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?
One sentence with zero filler; the action ('Request a pass or top-up') is front-loaded and the payment-conditioned challenge follows. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a payment-adjacent operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it doesn'tdescribe the response shape, the no-payment path, or how the x402 challenge is resolved. An agent can'tpredict whether the tool is idempotent-safe or what success looks like.
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 67% — the action parameter has no description. The description echoes 'pass' and 'top-up', mapping to the action enum and supplying a little semantics, but doesn'texplain what distinguishes a pass from a top-up. It adds nothing about idempotency_key's role in preventing duplicate charges.
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?
States a specific verb ('Request') and resource ('pass or top-up'), plus the distinctive consequence ('receive the x402 challenge'). Among billing siblings (commsharbor_billing, commsharbor_billing_catalog), this implies the purchase/action role, but it doesn'texplicitly differentiate from them and the 'x402 challenge' jargon is left unexplained.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as commsharbor_billing or commsharbor_billing_catalog. The only usage signal is implied: if you want a pass or top-up, invoke this. An agent gets no help choosing between the three billing tools.
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.
Most resource CRUD sets are distinct, but the server duplicates entire CRM activity/task tool groups under crm_* and platform_crm_* with identical descriptions, so an agent cannot tell which set to call. Additional overlap exists around identity/context (me, context, platform_context, organizations) and exports (contacts_export vs data_export_create).
Names generally follow commsharbor_<resource>_<action>, but list endpoints are split between plural nouns (audiences, webhooks) and *_list suffixes (crm_activities_list), and some tools use bare nouns or verbs (health, me, context, logout). The mixed conventions are readable but not fully predictable.
141 tools is far beyond a coherent surface for an agent to select from. Even with a broad CRM/email platform scope, the set should be consolidated, namespaced more aggressively, or split into multiple focused servers.
Coverage is broad: campaigns, templates, audiences, CRM objects, imports/exports, auth, billing, domains, webhooks, and suppressions all have lifecycle tools. Gaps like suppression deletion, webhook update, and a non-platform leads group are minor relative to the overall surface, though the duplicate platform sets muddy completeness.