Skip to main content
Glama

Dock

by ai.trydock

downgrade_plan

Schedule a downgrade to Free at the end of the current billing period. The org keeps its current plan (Pro or Scale) and paid limits until the period ends. No-op when already on Free. Consent-gated. Two consent surfaces, you pick via mode: (1) chat (default): FIRST call returns { status: 'confirmation_required', confirm_token, message, expires_in }; surface to your user and re-call within 60s with confirm_token set. (2) web: FIRST call returns { status: 'approval_required', approval_url, polling_url }; print approval_url in chat, user clicks + approves, then poll polling_url for the result.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoConsent surface. 'chat' (default) uses the in-chat confirm_token round-trip. 'web' returns an approval_url the user clicks in a browser.
confirm_tokenNoChat-mode only. The token returned by the first call as `confirm_token`. Omit on the first call; include on the second call to execute the scheduled downgrade. Single-use, 60s TTL.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the two-call consent flow, response statuses, token TTL, polling behavior, and no-op condition. This is exemplary behavioral transparency for a destructive/mutating operation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is dense but well-structured with numbered modes and code-formatted responses. No sentence is wasted; it packs essential flow details into a compact, scannable format.

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

Completeness4/5

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

It thoroughly explains the consent-gated flow, response shapes for first calls, and edge case (already on Free). The only minor gap is that the final success response (after second call/polling) is not explicitly defined, but the overall behavior is clear.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema already covers both parameters well, but the description adds operational meaning: how mode selects the consent path, the default, and how confirm_token is used in the two-step flow. This goes beyond the schema's field-level docs.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with 'Schedule a downgrade to Free at the end of the current billing period,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It clearly distinguishes this from upgrade_plan and other billing operations by explaining the timing and plan retention.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It provides clear when-to-use context: 'No-op when already on Free' and a detailed decision between chat and web consent modes. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like upgrade_plan, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

All Dock 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that prevent confusion. The main ambiguity arises from send_message vs. the referenced but missing message_teammate tool, and add_column vs. update_surface for schema changes, but these are mostly clarified by the descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming convention is predominantly verb_noun with underscores (e.g., create_workspace, list_rows, update_doc). Exceptions like 'search' and 'address_book' (no noun) and the two-word 'react_to_comment' are minor deviations in an otherwise consistent pattern.

Tool Count1/5

With 68 tools, the surface is far too large for an MCP server, exceeding the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. This volume creates excessive selection overhead for agents and suggests the tool set could be consolidated or split into focused servers.

Completeness3/5

The server covers broad functionality across workspaces, docs, tables, HTML, comments, files, webhooks, and billing. However, notable gaps exist: the explicitly referenced message_teammate tool is missing (preventing agent-to-agent waking), and there is no create/upload file tool or create API key tool, which creates dead ends in workflows.

Resources