Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Base.vn FastMCP Server

Base.vn FastMCP Server

by judestd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Base Account Set Subscription Users

base_account_set_subscription_users

Assign Base ecosystem app subscription rights to multiple employees using app name and username list.

Instructions

Gán quyền sử dụng ứng dụng trong hệ sinh thái Base cho danh sách nhân viên.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "app_name": "<app_name>",
      "usernames": "<usernames>"
    },
    "name": "base_account_set_subscription_users"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
app_nameYes
usernamesYes
access_tokenNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of revealing hehavioral traits. It only says the action may be assigned, but does not speak of whether 'set' means replacing the subscription list and revoking access for users no longer listed, nor does it mention permission requirements, idempotency, failure behavior, or what impact to the app access is an effect. For a mutation tool with the name 'set_', this is a significant missing disclosure and no outcome for the effect.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single Vietnamese sentence is front-loaded and free of filler — it communicates the essence of the tool in one line, so there is no waste. However, the brevity is a sign of under-specification rather than deliberate concision: each sentence is only one and missing the behavioral and parameter guidance; the message is simply a description of an infinite sentence.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool performs a consequential permission operation ('set' subscription users), yet with 3 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description explains nothing about how to pass arguments, what the operation does to existing users, or the access_token semantics. The presence of an output schema only covers the return value, not the input requirements. The description is not complete enough for an agent to call this tool safely and correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate but only maps out semantically: 'app_name' is the application in the ecosystem and 'usernames' is the list of employees. It does not explain the expected format of usernames (email vs username vs ID; string vs array), how to obtain app_name, or the role of 'access_token' (when it is needed and why it defaults to null). These remain ambiguous for an agent to set the call arguments correctly.

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 states a concrete verb ('Gán' / assign) and a specific resource (application usage rights in the Base ecosystem given to a list of employees), and it is unique among the siblings — no other listed tool mentions application subscription rights. The main gap is that 'set' semantics (replace the list vs add to it) are not clarified, so the differentiation from similar permission tools like base_account_set_group_managers is only partial.

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 this tool versus the similar usered permission tools (e.g., base_account_set_group_managers, base_account_update_user), no prerequisites spelled out (employees must exist, the app must be available in the ecosystem), and no exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions. The use case is only implied by the purpose sentence — acceptable for a valid case but not enough for correct tool selection.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools