check_business_tool_accessCheck whether a protected business action is available before offering it or requesting its inputs. For grace-period access, show the warning and verified resubscribe link before continuing. Never proceed when this preflight blocks the action.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| toolName | Yes | ||
| communityId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) indicate it's safe and non-destructive. The description adds context beyond annotations: it's a preflight that can block proceeding, includes grace-period warnings, and mentions showing a verified resubscribe link. No contradictions.
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?
Three sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose, each sentence adding value. No unnecessary words. Efficiently conveys the preflight role and key usage rules.
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?
The description covers the preflight logic and usage rules well, but lacks information about the output/return value. Since there is no output schema, the agent needs to know what the tool returns to decide next steps. This gap prevents full completeness.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'communityId' or 'toolName'. While the overall context hints that 'toolName' refers to the action being checked, there is no explicit mapping or clarification, leaving the agent to infer.
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 checks availability of a protected business action before proceeding, acting as a preflight. It distinguishes from sibling 'check_*' tools by specifying 'protected business action' and the preflight role, making its purpose specific and unambiguous.
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 says to use this tool before offering or requesting inputs for a protected business action. It also covers grace-period handling and warns never to proceed when blocked. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context provides clear guidance.
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.
Many tools are semantically identical, distinguished only by 'business' vs 'community' prefixes, and descriptions explicitly state they are interchangeable. This creates ambiguity for agent selection. Examples include add_business_admins/add_community_admins and get_business/get_community.
Tools generally follow a verb_noun pattern, but the inconsistent use of 'business' vs 'community' for the same entities breaks the pattern. While individual naming is clear, the overall set lacks uniformity.
With 423 tools, the server is massively over-scoped. The high count is driven by redundant 'business' and 'community' variants and many niche operations. A more focused surface would be far more manageable.
The tool set covers a broad range of features including CRUD operations for multiple product types, analytics, payments, messaging, and integrations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., missing update for some entity types), but overall domain coverage is strong.