Ask Dock to raise a plan limit (agents, workspaces, rows, or other). We record the signal on the admin side; there's no reply loop. Use this when you hit a cap you can't resolve with upgrade_plan (e.g. you're already Pro but need a custom limit).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | Which limit to raise | |
| reason | No | Optional: 1-2 sentences on the use case | |
| desiredValue | No | Optional: the specific limit you'd like |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing that it records a signal on the admin side and that there is no reply loop. This is critical for an agent to know that no immediate response or result will follow. It could have added that the limit is not changed immediately, but the current wording implies it.
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?
Two sentences, with the first stating the action and the second giving usage context. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the purpose.
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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral traits comprehensively. The lack of reply loop is explained, so an agent knows not to expect a response, making the description complete enough.
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 schema already provides full descriptions and an enum for the 'kind' parameter, and the description simply echoes the kinds without adding new semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('raise a plan limit') and lists the resource types (agents, workspaces, rows, or other), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'upgrade_plan' by name, which is a strong differentiator.
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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you hit a cap you can't resolve with upgrade_plan', including an example. This clearly frames the tool as a fallback for custom limit requests.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.