Skip to main content
Glama

autumn

by io.usefulapi

Create an entity

create_entity
Destructive

MUTATES Autumn billing data — creates an entity (e.g. a seat) under a customer, tied to a feature. Autumn API: POST /v1/entities.create.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoThe name of the entity.
entity_idYesThe ID of the entity.
feature_idYesThe ID of the feature this entity is associated with.
customer_idYesThe ID of the customer to create the entity for.
billing_controlsNoOptional billing controls for the entity (spend/usage limits).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

destructiveHint is already true, and the description reinforces it with 'MUTATES.' It adds context about operating on Autumn billing data and gives the REST endpoint, but it does not disclose idempotency, failure behavior, or side effects beyond the annotation. No contradiction exists.

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?

The description is one front-loaded sentence containing the mutation flag, resource, example, relationship, and API endpoint. There is no redundant or filler content.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 5-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description plus fully documented schema cover the essential inputs. However, missing usage guidance, response format, and duplicate-entity behavior leave a moderate gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so every parameter is individually documented. The description adds relational meaning by saying the entity is 'under a customer' and 'tied to a feature,' and it gives 'seat' as a concrete example for entity_id.

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 opens with 'MUTATES Autumn billing data' and states a specific verb/object: 'creates an entity (e.g. a seat) under a customer, tied to a feature.' This makes the operation concrete and differentiates it from sibling get/list tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use create_entity versus alternatives such as get_or_create_customer, nor any mention of prerequisites like an existing customer or feature. The purpose is inferable, but explicit usage guidance is missing.

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

All autumn toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

All tools have clearly distinct purposes: get/list for various resources, mutation tools like attach_plan, track_usage, and special tools like preview_attach and autumn_request for edge cases. No overlap in functionality.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_customer, list_plans, create_entity), but a few like autumn_request, preview_attach, and open_customer_portal break the pattern. Still, the naming is clear and predictable overall.

Tool Count4/5

18 tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but each tool serves a distinct purpose in the billing domain, covering customers, plans, features, entities, invoices, usage, and portal access. The count is justified by the complexity of the domain.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers CRUD for most resources (customers, features, plans, entities, invoices) plus billing operations like attach, check, preview, track usage, and customer portal. Missing delete operations and potential detach, but the read-only autumn_request may cover gaps. Minor gaps, not severe.

Resources