The plan catalog (price and quotas per plan) and whether Stripe billing is configured on this host. Anonymous callers get the same answer as tenants.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tenant_key | No | The key `signup` returned. Required only when this connection carries no Authorization: Bearer header -- when both are present, the header wins. |
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 the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one meaningful behavior: anonymous and tenant callers see identical results. It does not state side effects, caching, or error behavior, though the read-oriented nature is implied by 'catalog.'
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, dense sentence that puts the primary purpose first and adds the anonymous-caller note without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the simple scope.
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 simple catalog query with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key return content: prices, quotas, and Stripe configuration. It could go further by noting response shape or pagination, but none is likely needed at this complexity level.
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?
The input schema already documents tenant_key at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it does reinforce that tenant identity likely does not alter the response.
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 clearly identifies the resource (plan catalog) and the exact content returned (price and quotas per plan, plus Stripe configuration status). It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list,' but the intent is unambiguous and distinct from the billing checkout/status siblings.
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 implies this tool is for inspecting plan catalog data, and it provides a useful caller context: anonymous callers receive the same answer as tenants. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over billing.checkout or billing.status, nor does it mention any exclusions.
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 tools target a clearly distinct resource or lifecycle stage, with billing, secret, and tool-publishing groups nicely separated. The main ambiguity is among host.tool_call, host.tool_test, and host.tool_run, which all invoke a published tool in slightly different modes; the descriptions clarify this, but the names alone could mislead an agent.
The namespace prefixes billing.* and host.* provide a consistent organizational pattern, and host.tool_* tools use a predictable resource-action style. Deviations like signup, host.quickstart, host.usage, and host.whoami break the pattern, but they are few and still readable.
At 17 tools, the server is slightly over the typical well-scoped 3-15 range, but the breadth is justified by the multi-tenant hosting domain: signup, billing, tool lifecycle, secrets, debugging, and usage observability each need dedicated tools. Every tool has a plausible role, so the count feels reasonable rather than bloated.
The tool lifecycle is well covered with publish, list, test, run, call, logs, and remove, and billing/usage/signup are present. Notable gaps remain, though: secret_set has no corresponding secret_delete, there is no tenant update/delete operation, and host.registry_publish references admin.tenant_verify_namespace, which is not exposed in this tool set.