Contact Tillpad support from a Pro account. Delivers your subject and message to the Tillpad team; replies go to the account email. Requires an active Pro subscription.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | ||
| subject | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly says the subject and message are delivered to the Tillpad team and that replies go to the account email. It does not describe async behavior, ticketing, or failure modes, but the core side effect is disclosed.
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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and prerequisite are front-loaded, and every sentence adds useful information.
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 two-parameter support contact tool, the description covers what it does, who receives the message, where replies go, and the required subscription state. It does not describe what happens on failure or whether the contact creates a ticket, but these are minor for this tool's complexity.
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 has no descriptions for its two parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds purpose by saying 'your subject and message' are delivered, which clarifies that both parameters are sent. However, it does not explain expected content, formatting, or constraints beyond the schema's names and types.
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 states a specific verb ('contact') and resource ('Tillpad support'), and clarifies it is from a Pro account. It distinguishes the tool from its siblings by naming the team and the message-delivery purpose.
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?
The description explicitly states that an active Pro subscription is required and that the tool is for contacting support from a Pro account. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended usage context is clear.
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 are named as resource+action and target distinct surfaces (inbox, kvp, files, billing), so an agent can generally select the right tool. A few pairs like budget_get vs usage_get and inbox_message_get vs inbox_message_raw have adjacent purposes, but their descriptions mostly clear up the boundary.
The predominant convention is snake_case noun_verb, e.g. kvp_get, inbox_create, files_list. Minor deviations like inspect_storage (verb-noun) and bare noun names such as billing_portal and files_types slightly break the pattern.
With 35 tools, the server is well above the 25+ threshold and bundles many subdomains—billing, KVP, inbox, RAG, files, keys, support—into one surface. It would be more coherent as separate servers or with a significantly trimmed inbox tool set.
Core workflows are mostly covered: inbox lifecycle, webhooks, KVP CRUD, billing, and usage are solid. However file upload has no corresponding delete/remove tool, and keys have create but no list/revoke, leaving noticeable lifecycle gaps.