Skip to main content
Glama

Digital Manager Guru

by io.github.mcp-dir

guru_subscriptions_write_simulate_plan

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: simulate_plan]

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

D1.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but no contradiction. The description claims it is a write operation and mentions bulk support, but it does not disclose behavioral details like whether the simulation modifies state or just previews. Given that it's a 'simulate' action, it likely does not make changes, but the description does not state this, and annotations don't clarify. Since annotations are sparse, the description should carry more weight; it fails to explain the effect of the operation.

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 poorly structured: it starts with a long list of actions that are not relevant to this specific tool, then adds a clarifying note in brackets. This wastes space and confuses the agent. The bulk support mention is useful but should be placed after a clear purpose statement. It is not front-loaded with the specific action's purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple actions, nested objects, 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'simulate_plan' does, what the expected 'data' structure is, or any return values. The bulk support note is the only extra context. For an agent to correctly invoke this tool, it needs much more detail.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. The description mentions actions with parameters like '(id, +data opcional)' but does not explain what 'data' contains for simulate_plan. The schema shows an 'id', 'ids', 'data', and 'account' properties but no descriptions. The description provides minimal semantic value beyond the schema property names, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 a list of many subscription mutation actions but then says '[Flattened action: simulate_plan]', indicating that the tool is for the 'simulate_plan' action only. The purpose is unclear because the description begins by listing many actions, making it hard to distinguish what this specific tool does. It does not clearly state that it simulates a plan change on a subscription; instead, it enumerates all possible mutations, then partially clarifies with the flattened action note.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It mentions bulk support but does not explain how to choose between the many subscription write tools (e.g., guru_subscriptions_write_change_plan vs simulate_plan). There is no context about prerequisites or scenarios where simulation is appropriate.

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