agentView

Manage Licenses

manage_licenses

Destructive

Manages premium display licenses: action 'allocate' sets how many license slots an organization gets (licenses, 0 deallocates all), 'assign' binds a free license to a display, 'unassign' releases a display's license back to the pool. Check availability first with get_license_info. Requires admin scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`action`	Yes	License operation.
`org_id`	No	Organization ID (action 'allocate').
`licenses`	No	License slot count for 'allocate'; 0 deallocates all.
`display_id`	No	Display profile ID (actions 'assign' and 'unassign').
`access_token`	No	Optional bearer token; prefer session_request_id.
`session_request_id`	No	Session handle from create_auth_session; pass it on every authenticated call.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`name`	No
`orgId`	No
`badgeMode`	No
`freeLicenses`	No
`allocatedToOrg`	No
`isPremiumAssigned`	No
`personalDisplayLimit`	No
`freeAllocatableLicenses`	No
`totalAllocatableLicenses`	No

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavior: 0 deallocates all slots, unassign returns a license to the pool, and admin scope is required. No contradiction exists between description and annotations.

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?

Three sentences with no filler; the action list is front-loaded and the prerequisite/scope warning is compact. The first sentence is long, but its colon-separated structure keeps it readable.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a multi-action, destructive license tool, it covers all action semantics, the prerequisite lookup, and permission requirement. It does not discuss edge cases or failure states, but the output schema and full parameter schema cover the remaining invocation details.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the bar for adding value is higher. The description does clarify 'free license' and the allocation/deallocation behavior, but most parameter mappings are already present in the schema, and token/session parameters are left to the schema.

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 names a specific resource ('premium display licenses') and enumerates each action with its exact effect: allocate sets slot counts, assign binds a free license, unassign releases it. This goes beyond mere title repetition and clearly differentiates the tool from read-only license info via get_license_info.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives concrete usage context: check availability first with get_license_info and requires admin scope. It does not explicitly spell out when not to use each action, but the action semantics plus prerequisite make the intended flow clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All agentView 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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map cleanly to distinct resource-action pairs (displays, organizations, assets, data slots, store templates, auth). A few clusters like the get_store_template_* family and the auth/session tools could still confuse an agent, but their descriptions are explicit enough to separate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant pattern is consistent verb_noun snake_case (list_*, get_*, create_*, delete_*, send_*, set_*, manage_*). Deviations like fetch, search, authenticate, logout, and pair_by_code are understandable but break the otherwise uniform naming scheme.

Tool Count1/5

With 57 tools this server far exceeds the 50+ threshold, creating an extreme tool-set size for an MCP server. Even though the underlying platform is feature-rich, the sheer number of tools heavily taxes context and selection.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers display, organization, asset, data slot, store template, auth, API key, and licensing lifecycles in impressive depth. Minor gaps exist, such as no delete operation for display categories and no reboot/power control for displays.

Resources

Need Help?