Boardroom Revenue Control

Partner overview

partner_overview

Read-onlyIdempotent

This partner's own cabinet: referral code and link, the clients who registered through it, the agreed commission rate, what has accrued so far, and which client workspaces this partner currently holds a grant for. Only answers for a token bound to a partner. [scope: partner:read]

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	No	False when the call was refused or failed; see error.
`error`	No	Machine-readable refusal code (a string), present only when ok is false.
`message`	No	Human-readable explanation of a refusal (a string).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 9, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "error": {
+      "description": "Machine-readable refusal code (a string), present only when ok is false."
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "description": "Human-readable explanation of a refusal (a string)."
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "False when the call was refused or failed; see error.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: the auth/token binding requirement and the partner:read scope.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that leads with what the tool returns, then closes with the auth constraint. The middle is a dense comma-list of returned fields, which is efficient but slightly less scannable than shorter phrasing.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration, and the description still supplies the one thing an agent cannot infer from structure: the partner-bound token requirement. Nothing needed to invoke this zero-param tool correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies, and no parameter meaning is misstated.

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 (this partner's own cabinet) and enumerates its contents: referral code/link, registered clients, agreed commission rate, accruals, and held grants. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like whoami, crm_* and dashboard_snapshot, which cover different subjects.

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 states a hard precondition and a when-not: 'Only answers for a token bound to a partner,' plus the required scope [partner:read]. That is clear usage context, though it never names an alternative tool or when a caller should prefer a different overview.

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

All Boardroom Revenue Control tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.