Nas.com MCP

Update Zero Link

update_zero_link

Update editable Zero Link fields for a community managed by the authenticated Nas.com user. 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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	No
`amount`	No
`status`	No
`message`	No
`coverImg`	No
`currency`	No
`zeroLinkId`	Yes
`communityId`	Yes
`redirectLink`	No
`pricingConfig`	No
`passOnTakeRate`	No
`passOnPaymentGatewayFee`	No

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds context about access restrictions and prerequisites, going beyond the annotations. However, it does not fully describe potential side effects or error states.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with 4 sentences, front-loading the purpose and then providing essential usage instructions. It balances brevity with necessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, permissible values for enums, or the structure of pricingConfig, leaving the agent with significant gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any parameters beyond 'editable Zero Link fields'. With 12 parameters including nuanced ones like passOnTakeRate and pricingConfig, the agent lacks guidance on their meaning and usage.

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 clearly states the tool updates editable Zero Link fields for a community. The verb 'Update' and resource 'Zero Link fields' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like create_zero_link, delete_zero_link.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit guidance: check business permissions, FREE businesses cannot use, call check_business_tool_access, show grace-period warning and verified resubscribe link, and never proceed when access is blocked. This clearly tells the agent when and how 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.

All Nas.com MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

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.

Naming Consistency3/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?