preview_activate_pendingPreview the billing impact of activating all currently pending keywords (current vs target plan, prorated immediate charge) without making any change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No | Billing preview with the current plan, target plan, and prorated immediate charge. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by stating 'without making any change' and explaining the billing calculation details (current vs target plan, prorated immediate charge), which go beyond the annotation metadata.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence contains all essential information: the action, the object, the key output details, and the non-mutating guarantee. No wasted words.
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 zero-parameter, read-only preview tool with an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is being previewed, the key calculation dimensions, and the guarantee that no change is made. Nothing critical is missing.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description has no obligation to explain parameters. It still enriches understanding by describing what the preview computes.
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 uses a specific verb ('Preview'), identifies the exact resource ('billing impact of activating all currently pending keywords'), and clarifies scope ('current vs target plan, prorated immediate charge'). The phrase 'without making any change' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling activation tool.
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 implies when to use the tool — as a safe preview before committing to activation — but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. Since a similar sibling (preview_keyword_billing) exists, the lack of explicit routing leaves some ambiguity.
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.
Each tool maps to a distinct resource and action: website CRUD, keyword lifecycle, mention queries/updates, alert settings, and billing previews. Even similar tools like list_mentions/count_mentions and activate_pending_keywords/preview_activate_pending are clearly separated as listing vs counting and action vs preview.
The vast majority follow a clear verb_noun pattern (list_websites, create_website, update_mention_status, preview_keyword_billing). The only noticeable outlier is keyword_change_usage, which reads like a noun phrase instead of get_keyword_change_usage, and activate_pending_keywords/preview_activate_pending invert verb placement.
21 tools is on the higher side for an MCP server, but the count is justified by the number of distinct resources (websites, keywords, mentions, alerts, billing) and the need for action/preview pairs. It feels slightly heavy but not bloated.
The server covers the core lifecycle for websites, keywords, mentions, alerts, and billing previews with no dead ends: create/list/update/delete resources and status transitions are all present. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct current-plan retrieval and no bulk mention status updates, but agents can work around these.