Verify an access key and report what it unlocks. Returns valid:true/false; when valid, the tier, when it was created, the premium slugs it unlocks, and that it grants the gated /api/corpus.full.jsonl + get_full_corpus deliverable. Never returns the key, email, or Stripe session. Use this to confirm a freshly-purchased key works before relying on it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | Access key to verify (cg_...) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description fully discloses return fields (valid flag, tier, creation time, slugs, grant) and explicitly states what is never returned (key, email, Stripe session).
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundancy, every sentence adds value.
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?
Complete for a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema; adequately explains return behavior and constraints.
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 has 100% coverage with clear description of api_key parameter; description adds only minor usage context, meeting baseline.
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?
Clearly states the tool verifies an access key and reports what it unlocks, distinguishing from sibling tools like get_access_info and get_corpus.
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?
Explicitly recommends use for confirming a freshly-purchased key, implying when to use but not explicitly excluding 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 are clearly separated by resource type: articles, resources, corpus, stats, and articles. The main ambiguity is the access/pricing/payment cluster (`check_access`, `get_access_info`, `get_pricing`, `get_payment_info`), which agents could confuse despite distinct descriptions.
All tool names follow a consistent `verb_noun` pattern, using `get_*`, `list_*`, and `search_*` prefixes. The naming stays readable and predictable even with broader tools like `search` and `search_resources`.
14 tools is within the typical well-scoped range, and each major retrieval goal has a dedicated tool. It is slightly heavy because the access/pricing/payment information could arguably be consolidated, but it is not bloated.
The server covers discovery, listing, searching, fetching, corpus ingestion, editorial articles, stats, and access/pricing verification. As a read-only content/access server, full CRUD is not expected, though there is no direct category-based batch filter beyond a general search.