Read the organization's plan, limits and global entitlements. Read this before a bulk send: state.active says whether sending is allowed and warning says when the plan runs out. A new organization's trial starts with its first domain or send (state.started).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| organization_id | Yes | Active organization ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Read') and adds behavioral context by explaining the state fields (active, warning, started) and trial behavior, which helps the agent interpret the response. Does not mention side effects or errors, but for a simple read this is adequate.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then specific guidance on key fields. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
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?
Although there is no output schema, the description explains the key response fields (state.active, state.warning, state.started) that the agent needs to make decisions. It doesn't enumerate every field, but the essential ones for the stated use case are covered, making the tool usable.
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 single parameter (organization_id) is fully described in the schema ('Active organization ID') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the tool reads the organization's plan, limits, and global entitlements. It distinguishes itself from siblings like commsharbor_billing_catalog (catalog) and commsharbor_billing_purchase (purchase) by focusing on the read-only billing status.
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?
Explicitly instructs to read before a bulk send and explains the meaning of state.active and state.warning, giving a clear when-to-use directive. Does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for this read operation.
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.