Skip to main content
Glama

Digital Manager Guru

by io.github.mcp-dir

guru_subscriptions_plans_available

Read-onlyIdempotent

Assinaturas no Guru (leitura). Ações: search (filtros: subscription_status, product_id, contact_email/contact_doc/contact_name, started_at_ini/end, last_status_at_ini/end, cursor); get (id); activities (id); invoices (id); invoice (id + invoice_code); invoice_transactions (id + invoice_code); transactions (id); payment_types (id); plans_available (id).

[Flattened action: plans_available]

Bulk support: accepts ids, product_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
idsNo
cursorNo
accountNo
product_idNo
contact_docNo
product_idsNo
contact_nameNo
invoice_codeNo
contact_emailNo
started_at_endNo
started_at_iniNo
last_status_at_endNo
last_status_at_iniNo
subscription_statusNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations (stating 'leitura'), and mentions bulk support. However, it does not explain pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral aspects. It adds some detail (e.g., filter names) but not comprehensive transparency.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is concise but poorly structured. It mixes action lists, filter lists, and bulk support in a run-on style. The '[Flattened action]' note is cryptic and disrupts clarity. It could be more organized and readable.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (multiple actions, many parameters), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the overall workflow, which action to use when, or what the return values look like. The lack of an output schema and insufficient context makes it hard for an agent to use correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description lists some filter parameters within actions (e.g., subscription_status, product_id, contact_email, etc.) and mentions bulk support with ids and product_ids, giving partial meaning. However, many schema parameters (account, product_doc, started_at_end, etc.) are left unexplained, and the mapping between actions and parameters is unclear.

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?

The description is vague and inconsistent with the tool name. It says 'Assinaturas no Guru (leitura)' but lists multiple actions (search, get, activities, etc.), while the name suggests it is specifically for 'plans_available'. The primary purpose is not clearly stated, and the '[Flattened action: plans_available]' note adds confusion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling subscription tools (e.g., guru_subscriptions_get, guru_subscriptions_search). It does not specify which action to invoke for a given scenario or how this tool differs from alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Digital Manager Guru toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tool names themselves are distinct (e.g., guru_subscriptions_get vs guru_subscriptions_activities), but the descriptions for each resource are identical except for a '[Flattened action: X]' tag, listing all possible actions. This repetition can confuse agents into selecting the wrong tool, especially since many tools share the same description body. The naming is clear but the descriptive overlap undermines disambiguation.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority of tools follow a consistent pattern: guru_<resource>_<action> for reads and guru_<resource>_write_<action> for writes. However, there are outliers like 'authenticate', 'connect', 'marketplace', 'report_bug', etc., which break the pattern. Within the Guru API itself, the naming is highly predictable, but the occasional non-Guru tool reduces overall consistency.

Tool Count1/5

With 101 tools, the server is grossly over-scoped. The API has been fragmented into a separate tool for every action across many resources (e.g., subscriptions alone have 15+ tools). This is far beyond the typical MCP server size and makes the tool list overwhelming and impractical for agents to navigate. The extreme granularity offers no benefit over a smaller, well-organized set.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of operations: CRUD for contacts, subscriptions, transactions, products, coupons, webhooks, and more, including write actions like refunds, chargebacks, and subscription modifications. The domain appears well-covered, though some resources lack create operations (e.g., no create subscription) and there are a few gaps like missing explicit update for transactions. Overall, the coverage is thorough for the stated API surface.

Resources