get_upsellGet an upsell by ID. Before offering this action or requesting its inputs, check business permissions. FREE businesses cannot use this tool, regardless of individual feature rows. Call check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs. Show any grace-period warning and verified resubscribe link before continuing, and never proceed when access is blocked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| upsellId | Yes | ||
| communityId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It details access restrictions (FREE businesses blocked), mandatory pre-checks (check_business_tool_access), and UX requirements (grace-period warning, resubscribe link). This compensates well for the lack of annotation depth.
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 efficient, starting with the core purpose and then listing essential prerequisites. It is not overly verbose, though it could be slightly shortened by removing redundant phrases (e.g., 'Before offering...' could be streamlined).
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 non-trivial access control flow well but omits details about the return value (no output schema) and parameter semantics. For a simple get-by-ID tool with complex access rules, the focus is appropriate but leaves gaps in parameter understanding and output expectations.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage (no descriptions for the two required parameters, upsellId and communityId). The description does not explain what these parameters represent or any constraints. The tool name and context imply communityId is the owning community, but no formal guidance is given.
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 opens with 'Get an upsell by ID,' which clearly states the action (get) and resource (upsell by ID). It distinguishes this read operation from its sibling tools like create_upsell, delete_upsell, and update_upsell.
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 provides explicit guidance: check business permissions, note that FREE businesses cannot use this tool, call check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs, show grace-period warnings and resubscribe links, and never proceed when access is blocked. It clearly states when not to use the tool.
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.