Skip to main content
Glama

Dock

by ai.trydock

upgrade_plan

Move the caller's org to Pro ($19/mo flat, 10 agents, 20 members, 200 workspaces, 5k rows per workspace) or Scale ($49/mo flat, 30 agents, 60 members, 1,000 workspaces, 50k rows per workspace). The bill doesn't change as you add agents. If the org has no card on file, returns a Stripe Checkout URL for the human. If a card exists, a live plan switch (Pro ↔ Scale) is consent-gated. Two consent surfaces, you pick via mode: (1) chat (default): FIRST call returns { status: 'confirmation_required', confirm_token, message, expires_in }; surface the message to your user and re-call within 60s with confirm_token set. (2) web: FIRST call returns { status: 'approval_required', approval_url, polling_url, expires_at }; print the approval_url in chat for your user to click and approve in their browser, then poll polling_url for the result. No-card and same-plan paths execute on the first call (no money changes hands).

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. Use 'web' if you're headless or your user prefers a click-to-approve flow.
planNoTarget plan. Defaults to 'pro'.
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 plan flip. Single-use, 60s TTL, bound to {org, caller, operation, params}.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fully discloses side effects (bill changes, consent gates), the exact flow of first vs second calls, expiry times, no-card behavior, and that no money changes hands on same-plan/no-card paths.

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 long but every sentence serves a purpose: pricing details, consent protocol, branch behavior, and timing. It is well-structured with clear enumeration of modes and prerequisites, making it easy to follow despite its length.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description explains return values for both modes, error/approval paths, and edge cases (no card, same plan). It provides a complete mental model for executing an upgrade, including exactly what the agent must do (surface messages, poll URLs).

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining how `mode` affects the call flow and how `confirm_token` is used across two calls, plus what plan changes entail. It doesn't add much about the `plan` parameter beyond schema enums, but overall it exceeds the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Move the caller's org to') with a clear resource (plan) and lists exactly what Pro and Scale include. It distinguishes from the sibling downgrade_plan by focusing on upgrading and specifying the target plans.

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?

The description gives clear context on when to use the tool (upgrading an org) and how to handle the two consent modes, including when to use web vs chat (via schema). However, it does not explicitly mention the alternative tool (downgrade_plan) or state 'do not use for downgrades,' so it falls 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