Cabgo Builder

cabgo_start_signup

Public (no auth): generate a signup URL for the operator who wants to pay first then configure (legacy flow). For the recommended chat-driven onboarding, use cabgo_create_trial instead — it spins up the tenant without payment so the operator can configure end-to-end in chat before deciding to activate. Use this tool only when the operator explicitly asks to pay before creating, or when targeting a marketing landing page rather than chat onboarding.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`plan`	No	BASIC \| PROFESSIONAL \| ENTERPRISE (monthly subscription)
`phone`	No	WhatsApp phone in international format, e.g. +525500001234.
`source`	No	Free-form attribution label for utm_campaign (e.g. 'claude-desktop').
`appName`	No	Name the operator wants for their app (rider-facing).
`appPlan`	No	STARTER \| PRO \| FULL (one-time app build)
`country`	No	ISO-3166-1 alpha-2 country code, lowercased.
`contactEmail`	No	Operator email for attribution.
`productLines`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses that the tool is public (no authentication required) and is part of a legacy flow, which adds context beyond annotations. It does not specify the return format but an output schema exists.

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?

Three efficient sentences, front-loaded with key information (no auth, legacy flow), followed by usage guidance. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has 8 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and contrasts with an alternative. It is complete enough for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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?

Parameter descriptions in the schema cover 88% of parameters, so the description does not need to add much. It does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema, but the context of 'pay first' and 'legacy flow' helps frame the parameters.

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 clearly states the tool generates a signup URL for a legacy 'pay first' flow. It distinguishes itself from the recommended sibling tool `cabgo_create_trial`, providing a specific verb and resource.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly advises when to use (operator wants to pay first or targeting marketing landing page) and when not to use (prefer `cabgo_create_trial` for chat-driven onboarding). This provides clear context and exclusions.

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

All Cabgo Builder tools Inspect

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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose: about, create app, create trial, publish requirements, install instructions, pricing, and signup. Even though cabgo_create_my_app and cabgo_create_trial both create tenants, their descriptions clearly differentiate them by context (free workspace vs trial) and intended use (immediate app creation vs trial configuration).

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools use the 'cabgo_' prefix consistently and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_my_app, create_trial, get_publish_requirements). Two tools (cabgo_about, cabgo_pricing) are nouns rather than verbs, but this is a minor deviation that does not hinder comprehension.

Tool Count5/5

With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped. The count is sufficient to cover the core onboarding workflow without being overwhelming or insufficient for the stated purpose of helping users launch and publish their app.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers the initial lifecycle (info, creation in two modes, publishing requirements, installation, pricing, and legacy signup). However, there are no tools for post-creation management (e.g., updating app settings, managing drivers, viewing analytics), which leaves notable gaps for ongoing operations.

Resources

Need Help?