set_roleChange a workspace member’s role — admin (full access incl. billing) or member (read-only on billing). A privilege change: confirm the exact person + new role with the user, then call with confirm:true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | Yes | the new role | |
| Yes | the member’s email | ||
| confirm | No | REQUIRED true |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false (write), destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context: it highlights that this is a privilege change affecting billing access and mandates a confirmation step. This goes beyond the safety profile provided by annotations, disclosing the sensitive nature and required user consent.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a clarifying privilege statement and a direct usage instruction. No wasted words; every sentence 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 simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, role meanings, and the critical confirmation requirement. Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly state that confirm is required (though the description says 'call with confirm:true'), and the schema marks it optional, but this inconsistency is minor given the explicit instruction in prose.
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?
Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the role enum values (admin = full access incl. billing, member = read-only on billing) and emphasizing the confirm:true requirement. This enriches parameter understanding beyond the basic schema.
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?
The description clearly states the action: 'Change a workspace member’s role' with a specific verb and resource. It enumerates the two role values (admin, member) and their implications (full access vs read-only on billing). This distinguishes it from related tools like invite_member or remove_member by focusing on privilege modification.
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?
The description gives explicit usage instruction: confirm the exact person and new role with the user before calling, and set confirm:true. It provides context (privilege change) but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools. Still, the confirmation requirement is critical behavioral guidance.
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.
With 293 tools, the surface is enormous and many tools have overlapping purposes—multiple posting tools (post_to_meta, post_to_linkedin, schedule_post, etc.), multiple analytics tools per channel, and several search tools (search_meta_ads, search_instagram, search_reddit...). While each description is detailed, the volume makes it difficult for an agent to reliably distinguish between similar tools without careful reading, leading to frequent misselection.
The naming is largely consistent with a verb_noun pattern (post_to_*, list_*, create_*, delete_*, update_*, manage_*). There are clear families for major operations. A few outliers like 'google_business_account', 'hermoso_capabilities', and 'store_get' break the pattern, but the overwhelming majority follow a predictable structure, making navigation somewhat easier.
293 tools is far beyond any reasonable scope for a single MCP server, even for a comprehensive marketing platform. The calibration guide flags 50+ as an extreme mismatch, and this is nearly six times that threshold. Such a large surface overwhelms context windows, increases the probability of misselection, and makes it impractical for agents to learn or use effectively.
The tool set covers a vast domain: ad creation and rendering, posting across nine+ social channels, analytics and reporting, file management (Drive/OneDrive), competitor research, brand management, and more. It appears to provide CRUD and lifecycle coverage for most resources. While there may be minor gaps given the immense scope, the overall coverage is impressively comprehensive.