complete_onboarding【需要登录】校验前置条件后把入驻引导标记为完成（给 onboardedAt 盖戳）。
【前置】必须已选身份 persona；若是创业者（FOUNDER），还需名下至少 1 个产品且 bio 已填（intro 选填不卡），否则报 onboarding_incomplete。
【注意】这是真实状态变更——调用前先 get_onboarding_status 确认各项已就绪，并向用户确认「确实要完成入驻」。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations, the description discloses required login, the fact that this is a real state change, the specific error onboarding_incomplete, and the expected preflight sequence. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs beyond readOnlyHint/destructiveHint.
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 short labeled sections: requirement/purpose, preconditions, and caution. The most important operational detail (login, state change) is front-loaded, and every sentence carries actionable information with no filler.
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 zero-parameter state-transition tool with no output schema, the description covers authentication, prerequisites, failure mode, required preflight check, and user confirmation. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description appropriately focuses on preconditions and side effects instead, matching the baseline for a parameterless tool.
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?
Description states a specific verb and resource: 把入驻引导标记为完成, with the concrete outcome of stamping onboardedAt. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_onboarding_status, which retrieves the same state rather than mutating it.
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?
Description gives explicit preconditions (persona required; FOUNDER needs at least one product and a filled bio) and tells the agent to call get_onboarding_status first and confirm with the user before proceeding. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is unambiguous.
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.
Each tool has a clearly documented purpose, often with explicit 'when to use' guidance and cross-references, making the vast majority easy to tell apart. A few clusters (get_my_brief, get_my_positioning, get_my_work, get_my_dispatch) and data-overlapping get_my_card vs get_my_profile require careful reading, but descriptions are detailed enough to prevent serious misselection.
The overwhelming majority follow snake_case verb_noun conventions (create_product, update_need, list_my_signups). Minor deviations include noun-only feed names (personalized_feed, random_feed), inconsistency between 'prefs' and 'preferences' in notification tools, and a mix of update_* and set_* for mutations, but the pattern remains predictable overall.
137 tools is an extreme mismatch for any MCP server, far exceeding the 50+ threshold for a score of 1. Even with a broad multi-domain platform, this volume makes tool selection and navigation impractical and heavily burdens the agent's context window.
The surface covers full lifecycles for needs, products, activities/signups, conversations, collaboration goals/tasks, dispatch, profile/onboarding, and supporting resources like companies, parks, policies, and ratings. Deliberate omissions (no user-post creation, no organizer profile editing via agent) are explicitly documented, so core workflows have no obvious dead ends.