workspaces.billing.instruments.verify
POST /v1/workspaces/:slug/billing/accounts/:accountId/instruments/:instrumentId/verify
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| pathParams | No |
POST /v1/workspaces/:slug/billing/accounts/:accountId/instruments/:instrumentId/verify
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| pathParams | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions required, or failure modes. The agent has no insight into the tool's impact.
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?
The description is extremely concise (one line), but it is under-specified and not informative. Conciseness is not beneficial when it sacrifices necessary detail.
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?
Given the complex tool name, lack of annotations, generic schema, and no output schema, the description is critically incomplete. It fails to provide essential context for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description offers no parameter information beyond the generic property names 'body', 'query', 'pathParams'. No meaning is added beyond the schema.
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 is just an HTTP path, which implies a POST request to verify an instrument, but does not explain what 'verify' means in the billing context. It is barely more than the tool name, lacking any functional clarification.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'attach' or 'list'. The description provides no context, preconditions, or alternatives.
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.
All 43 tools are clearly disambiguated by a hierarchical dot-separated naming scheme (e.g., workspaces.billing.accounts.create). Each tool targets a unique combination of resource and action, with no apparent overlap or ambiguity.
The naming follows a consistent <domain>.<subdomain>.<action> pattern, with actions as verbs (create, list, revoke, etc.). The use of underscores within the final component is uniform, making the pattern predictable across all tools.
At 43 tools, the server covers a broad scope (contracts, billing, workspaces, tasks, etc.), which justifies the high count. However, it is slightly above the typical well-scoped range of 3-15, risking overwhelm.
The tool set covers many operations for billing, tasks, and workspace management, but lacks fundamental create/update/delete for some core resources (e.g., no workspace.create or instruments.delete). Agents may encounter dead ends.