Skip to main content
Glama

Toggle Built-in Tool

neuron_toggle_builtin_tool
Idempotent

Toggle a built-in tool on or off for a specific bot. Enabled tools become available in the bot's conversations. Example tool IDs: delete_message, post_to_channel, post_status, web_search, send_direct_message, react_to_message, set_reminder, create_poll.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
botIdYesUnique identifier (UUID) of the bot to toggle the tool for
toolIdYesIdentifier of the built-in tool (e.g., 'delete_message', 'post_status', 'web_search')
enabledYesWhether to enable (true) or disable (false) the tool

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is readOnly=false, idempotent, not destructive. The description is consistent but adds little beyond stating the basic effect. No contradictions.

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?

One clear sentence plus a list of examples. Front-loaded with the action and purpose. No unnecessary words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple toggle tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the effect and gives examples. A minor gap: it doesn't clarify if the change takes effect immediately or requires a bot restart.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by providing example tool IDs, which helps the agent understand valid values for toolId without requiring external knowledge.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: toggle a built-in tool on/off for a specific bot. It provides example tool IDs, adding specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool neuron_bulk_toggle_builtin_tools, which could be done by noting it affects a single tool.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like the bulk toggle. It does not indicate prerequisites or situations where toggling is appropriate.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are clearly separated by resource type, but there is meaningful overlap in messaging entry points (send_message, send_whatsapp, compose_message, bot_api_send) and contact ingestion/sync tools (import_contacts, populate_contacts, sync_whatsapp_contacts). The descriptions help disambiguate, but with 309 tools an agent will frequently need to read closely to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*. Minor deviations like sales_stats, lead_stats, wallet_balance, and whoami break the pattern slightly, but overall naming is highly predictable.

Tool Count1/5

309 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server, even a broad platform. This creates significant cognitive load and navigation overhead for agents, and far exceeds the well-scoped 3-15 tool range where coherence is strongest.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive across bots, contacts, campaigns, flows, knowledge bases, personas, marketplace, wallet, and products. Minor gaps exist — lead sources lack update/delete tools, and there is no single get_task or get_webhook alongside their list/update/delete counterparts — but these are workable gaps rather than dead ends.

Resources