start_checkoutReturn a Stripe Checkout URL the human clicks once to add a card. After the human completes checkout, future topup_credits calls are silent off-session charges. Hand the returned url to the user, do not try to follow it yourself.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tier_key | Yes | Credit pack to purchase on first checkout: '1k', '5k', or '25k'. |
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?
The description explains the interaction flow: the human must click the URL, and after completion, subsequent `topup_credits` calls are off-session. It also warns the agent not to follow the URL itself. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations, which only specify read-only and idempotency flags without detail.
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 three short sentences, starting with the primary function, then the consequence, then a usage directive. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: return value, required human action, and subsequent effect on `topup_credits`. It also provides a direct usage instruction. Minor gaps like failure behavior or idempotency are not addressed but are not critical for this tool's simplicity.
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 provides full coverage for the single `tier_key` parameter, including allowed values and a description. The tool description itself does not add new semantic details about the parameter, though the title clarifies it's for the initial checkout. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 states the tool returns a Stripe Checkout URL for one-time card capture, distinguishing it from the sibling `topup_credits` tool. The verb 'Return' and resource 'Stripe Checkout URL' are specific. The follow-up behavior for `topup_credits` further clarifies its role.
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?
It implies when to use: before `topup_credits`, and explicitly states future `topup_credits` calls become off-session charges. It also gives a clear directive to hand the URL to the user and not follow it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, though the sibling context makes it clear.
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.
The find_* tools all relate to email discovery but differ by input (domain, LinkedIn URL, person+company), and the descriptions clarify these distinctions. However, find_all overlaps with several individual tools, and find_company_emails vs find_decision_maker_email could cause slight confusion despite their specific purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (check_balance, find_company_emails, lookup_company_website, etc.). Even the more generic find_all fits the pattern. No mixed conventions or inconsistent casing.
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for an email enrichment service with billing support. It covers core enrichment operations and account management without unnecessary bloat.
The domain is well covered: website lookup, various email finding methods, and a combined find_all. Billing is handled with balance, checkout, and top-up. A minor gap is lack of API key management (only count is shown), but it doesn't cause dead ends.