Skip to main content
Glama

mcphost

by dev.mcphost

host.tool_call

Invoke a tool this tenant has already published, by its local name -- the same real, metered call as calling it directly by its namespaced name (.), for a session that has no way to see its own namespaced tool name yet. Unlike host.tool_test, this counts toward host.usage and appears in host.tool_logs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argsYes
nameYes
tenant_keyNoThe key `signup` returned. Required only when this connection carries no Authorization: Bearer header -- when both are present, the header wins.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavior: this is a real (not test) invocation, it counts toward host.usage, and it appears in host.tool_logs. It does not describe side effects of the underlying tool, but those are tool-specific and cannot be stated generically.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences with the core action front-loaded; the caveats about metering, logging, and tool_test are all relevant and each phrase earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Adequate for a generic dispatch tool, but no output schema or annotations forces the description to cover more: it omits what the response contains and does not mention error/auth conditions beyond the schema. The local-name distinction is helpful, yet return behavior is left unstated.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 33%; the description adds meaning for 'name' (local vs namespaced) but does not clarify 'args' beyond its object type or supplement tenant_key beyond the schema. With low coverage, the description should compensate more for the params.

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?

Starts with a concrete action ('Invoke a tool this tenant has already published') and clearly identifies resource and naming mode ('by its local name'). It also distinguishes the operation from a direct namespaced call and from host.tool_test.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly tells the agent when this call is appropriate: to get a real, metered invocation when the session cannot see its own namespaced name. It also gives a direct exclusion by contrasting with host.tool_test (no usage/log impact).

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

All mcphost toolsInspect
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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count4/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources