Skip to main content
Glama

Digital Manager Guru

by io.github.mcp-dir

guru_subscriptions_write_set_trial_end_date

Mutações em assinaturas Guru. Ações: cancel (id, +data opcional); cancel_at_cycle_end (id); add_coupon (id + data); remove_coupon (id); set_current_offer (id + data); set_next_offer (id + data); set_cycle_end_date (id + data); set_trial_end_date (id + data); set_installment (id + data); change_plan (id + data); simulate_plan (id + data); set_payment_types (id + data); set_increment_discount (id + data); remove_increment_discount (id).

[Flattened action: set_trial_end_date]

Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
idsNo
dataNo
accountNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), but the description does not elaborate on the effects or requirements. It does not mention authentication needs, potential side effects, or what the endpoint does beyond the action name. The description adds little beyond the annotations, and the lack of detail about the mutation's behavior is a gap.

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 cluttered with a long list of actions that are not relevant to this tool, making it longer than necessary. It is not front-loaded with the essential information; the specific action is buried in a list. Brevity would be improved by focusing only on set_trial_end_date.

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?

The tool is a mutation with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage. The description does not explain the expected behavior of set_trial_end_date (e.g., what data is needed, what happens on success/failure), nor does it clarify the 'data' parameter structure. Given the complexity and lack of schema support, the description is incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'id' and 'data' ('id + data') but does not explain the structure or purpose of 'data' or the other parameters (ids, account). The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema, which is insufficient given the 0% coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool's action as 'set_trial_end_date' within the context of subscription mutations, which is clear. However, it lists many other actions (cancel, add_coupon, etc.) that are not relevant to this tool, creating confusion. It distinguishes from siblings by naming the specific action, but the extra actions muddle the purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists numerous actions, but it does not explain when to choose set_trial_end_date over other subscription write tools. It merely mentions 'Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution,' which is marginal context.

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