Begin a credit-pack top-up for the project owner. Pass the packs eurCents(from list_credit_packs). Returns{checkoutUrl, credits, eurCents, directCharge}or{transactionId, credits, eurCents, directCharge:true}` on subsequent MCP purchases. Owner-only; requires a token minted with the billing scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eurCents | Yes | Pack price in EUR cents, matching a pack returned by list_credit_packs. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint false), the description discloses the return format variants ({checkoutUrl...} vs {transactionId...}), the directCharge flag behavior, and the authorization requirement (owner-only, billing scope). This is substantial behavioral context that annotations do not provide.
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 three concise sentences, each serving a distinct role: stating the action, specifying the parameter source, and describing return values and authorization. No unnecessary 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?
Given the single parameter and absence of an output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, parameter origin, return variants, and authorization context. It provides everything needed to invoke the tool successfully.
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 already provides 100% coverage of eurCents, including 'matching a pack returned by list_credit_packs.' The description restates the same information without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 explicitly states 'Begin a credit-pack top-up for the project owner' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing list_credit_packs as the source of eurCents.
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 tells the agent to pass eurCents from list_credit_packs and notes the owner-only billing scope requirement. This gives clear context for when to use, though it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.
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 target distinct resources and the descriptions are unusually explicit, but the billing cluster (change_plan/cancel_subscription and the many add-on actions) plus the preview/diff tools overlap and could cause mis-selection. config_diff, dry_run_endpoint, and preview_line_draft all read as 'preview what will change' at first glance despite different scopes.
The overwhelming majority follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, set_*, update_*, delete_*. It is only held back by a few naming outliers such as config_diff and default_endpoint_template, which break the verb-first convention.
78 tools is an extreme mismatch for an MCP server surface, even accounting for the broad management/relay domain. Such a large surface will overwhelm model context and make tool selection materially harder; this would be better split into focused servers for configuration, data-plane operations, and billing.
The tool surface is very thorough: projects, lines, endpoints, credentials, keys, configs/drafts, DLQ, requests, metrics, audit, team, and billing are all represented. Only minor gaps exist, such as no direct single-line get/update and the intentional inability to widen the outbound allowlist or lift archive protection via API.
