commsharbor_billing
Read tenant entitlements and available sends.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| organization_id | Yes | Active organization ID |
commsharbor
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5
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 indicating side effects. The word 'Read' clearly signals a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is useful. However, the description does not disclose what the response contains, whether the data reflects current usage, or any authorization/error implications, so it is only minimally transparent.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It states the verb and resource immediately, making it fast for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description could do more to explain what the returned entitlements/available sends look like and how this tool relates to billing_purchase or billing_catalog. However, the tool has only one required parameter and a clear read-only purpose, so it is adequate for basic selection and invocation but lacks richer context.
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?
The schema fully documents the only parameter as 'Active organization ID', and the description adds little beyond 'tenant', which loosely maps to organization_id. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate.
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 opens with a clear verb ('Read') and names specific resources ('tenant entitlements and available sends'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like commsharbor_billing_catalog and commsharbor_billing_purchase by operation and scope. This is a specific, non-tautological purpose statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the other billing siblings, and it does not mention exclusions or alternatives. The read-only wording implies a use case, but that is not enough to help an agent choose correctly among related billing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Most resource CRUD sets are distinct, but the server duplicates entire CRM activity/task tool groups under crm_* and platform_crm_* with identical descriptions, so an agent cannot tell which set to call. Additional overlap exists around identity/context (me, context, platform_context, organizations) and exports (contacts_export vs data_export_create).
Naming Consistency3/5
Names generally follow commsharbor_<resource>_<action>, but list endpoints are split between plural nouns (audiences, webhooks) and *_list suffixes (crm_activities_list), and some tools use bare nouns or verbs (health, me, context, logout). The mixed conventions are readable but not fully predictable.
Tool Count1/5
141 tools is far beyond a coherent surface for an agent to select from. Even with a broad CRM/email platform scope, the set should be consolidated, namespaced more aggressively, or split into multiple focused servers.
Completeness4/5
Coverage is broad: campaigns, templates, audiences, CRM objects, imports/exports, auth, billing, domains, webhooks, and suppressions all have lifecycle tools. Gaps like suppression deletion, webhook update, and a non-platform leads group are minor relative to the overall surface, though the duplicate platform sets muddy completeness.