Switch the active team (tenant) for this token. The change persists across sessions until switched again. Caller must be a member of the target team.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tenantId | Yes | Target team ID. Use list_my_tenants to discover. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | The team the token now operates on | |
| name | No | Team name | |
| slug | No | Team slug |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (which only say the tool is not read-only and not destructive), the description discloses the key behavioral trait that the switch persists across sessions, and the access requirement that the caller must be a member. No contradiction with annotations exists, as the readOnlyHint=false is consistent with a state-changing operation.
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 exactly three short sentences: the action, the persistence effect, and the membership precondition. Every sentence carries distinct information, the most important facts are front-loaded, and there is no redundant wording.
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 tool is simple (one parameter) with a rich schema and an output schema available, so the description's coverage of purpose, side-effect persistence, and eligibility precondition is sufficient. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears to be 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the sole parameter (tenantId) well documented, including a pointer to list_my_tenants for discovery. The description adds no additional parameter-level information, so with full schema coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb (Switch), a precise resource (active team/tenant), and the exact scope (for this token). It clearly distinguishes itself from the get_active_tenant (read) and list_my_tenants (discover) siblings.
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 a precondition (caller must be a member of the target team) and states that the change persists across sessions, which implies when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it - the cue to use list_my_tenants for discovery lives only in the parameter schema rather than in the description.
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.
Most tools map to a distinct resource and action, and the descriptions actively disambiguate similar operations (e.g., get_form vs get_form_share_info vs get_form_stats). The main potential confusion is between list_records and list_leads and between get_record and get_lead, since both describe leads from slightly different angles.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun convention, with resources like form, question, lead, booking, examinee, translation, and tenant parallel across actions. The few non-CRUD verbs like prepare_/finalize_, duplicate_, and reschedule_ still fit the same uniform pattern.
48 tools is well beyond the 3–15 ideal and even past the 25+ threshold, making the tool surface heavy for an agent to navigate. The broad platform scope explains some of the size, but the count still risks overwhelming context and increasing misselection.
The server covers form lifecycle, question editing, translations, CRM leads, examinees, records, bookings, team/tenant operations, image uploads, templates, and analytics extremely well. Minor gaps remain—such as no lead/record deletion, no member removal or role updates, and limited booking-settings management—but most workflows can be completed with the existing tools.