Create (or reuse an open one for the same plan) a Stripe Checkout URL to upgrade this tenant, defaulting to the pro plan. Returns billing_unavailable if this host has no Stripe key configured -- call billing.plans first to check.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan | No | ||
| tenant_key | No | The key `signup` returned. Required only when this connection carries no Authorization: Bearer header -- when both are present, the header wins. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful behavioral traits: it may reuse an existing checkout session for the same plan, defaults to pro, and returns billing_unavailable when no Stripe key is configured. It also communicates an ordering prerequisite (call billing.plans first). It stops short of describing full payment flow side effects or success return shape, but it is more transparent than most.
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?
Two sentences with no filler: first sentence delivers the action and default, second sentence covers the failure mode and remediation. It is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action, default behavior, a specific error case, and a prerequisite call. The only notable gap is that it does not explicitly state the success return value (the checkout URL), though it is strongly implied by the first sentence.
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 50%: tenant_key has a schema description, plan does not. The description adds that plan defaults to 'pro', which helps clarify plan's optionality, but it does not enumerate valid plan values or further explain how plan interacts with the checkout flow. This partial compensation keeps it average.
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?
States a precise action: create (or reuse) a Stripe Checkout URL to upgrade the tenant, defaulting to the pro plan. It clearly distinguishes from sibling billing.plans by focusing on checkout/upgrade, and explicitly references billing.plans as a prerequisite check.
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?
Provides clear context: use this tool to upgrade the tenant, with the plan defaulting to pro. It explicitly instructs to call billing.plans first to check for Stripe key configuration, giving a concrete alternative for a specific failure condition. It does not discuss all possible sibling tools, but the key routing scenario is covered.
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 a clearly distinct resource or lifecycle stage, with billing, secret, and tool-publishing groups nicely separated. The main ambiguity is among host.tool_call, host.tool_test, and host.tool_run, which all invoke a published tool in slightly different modes; the descriptions clarify this, but the names alone could mislead an agent.
The namespace prefixes billing.* and host.* provide a consistent organizational pattern, and host.tool_* tools use a predictable resource-action style. Deviations like signup, host.quickstart, host.usage, and host.whoami break the pattern, but they are few and still readable.
At 17 tools, the server is slightly over the typical well-scoped 3-15 range, but the breadth is justified by the multi-tenant hosting domain: signup, billing, tool lifecycle, secrets, debugging, and usage observability each need dedicated tools. Every tool has a plausible role, so the count feels reasonable rather than bloated.
The tool lifecycle is well covered with publish, list, test, run, call, logs, and remove, and billing/usage/signup are present. Notable gaps remain, though: secret_set has no corresponding secret_delete, there is no tenant update/delete operation, and host.registry_publish references admin.tenant_verify_namespace, which is not exposed in this tool set.