get_business_permissionsGet feature permissions for a managed community, optionally including usage. Business and community refer to the same thing and are interchangeable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| communityId | Yes | ||
| includeUsage | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is read-only. The description adds that usage can optionally be included, which is a behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose any other potential behaviors like response size, pagination, or error conditions.
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 a single sentence, which is concise and front-loads the key action and object. However, it includes a clarification about business/community interchangeability that, while helpful, could be integrated more elegantly without additional length.
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 read-only tool with two parameters, the description covers the basic purpose and one optional aspect. However, it lacks details about what 'feature permissions' entails, the expected response, or any edge cases. Given the absence of an output schema, more context would be beneficial.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly mentions the communityId parameter by referring to 'a managed community', and the includeUsage parameter as 'optionally including usage'. However, it does not explain the format or constraints of communityId, nor does it fully clarify the meaning of the parameters beyond what the schema provides.
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 retrieves feature permissions for a managed community, with an optional usage flag. It also clarifies that 'business' and 'community' are interchangeable, which reduces confusion with sibling tools like get_community_permissions. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from potentially similar tools, leaving slight ambiguity.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_community_permissions or other permission-related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
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.