Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Stables MCP Server

Stables MCP Server

Official
by stables-money
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Request entitlements

request_entitlements
Destructive

Apply for one or more entitlements for an existing customer, such as adding a payment rail; check available entitlements first and follow up with any missing verification requirements.

Instructions

Apply for one or more entitlements for an existing customer, e.g. to add a payment rail. Check list_available_entitlements first. If Stables needs more verification, the response lists what is missing; send it with submit_entitlement_requirements.

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": {
      "customerId": "<customerId>",
      "entitlements": "<entitlements>"
    },
    "name": "request_entitlements"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
customerIdYesThe customer ID
entitlementsYesEntitlement names, e.g. ['aed_local']

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.6.11
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Addedv2.4.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds valuable workflow context by explaining that the response may enumerate missing verification requirements. However, it never addresses what the destructive flag implies (e.g. whether a failed/incomplete request leaves partial state, or what happens on re-invocation given non-idempotency), which is the most important behavioral detail for this tool.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action, the prerequisite, and the conditional follow-up. The action is front-loaded with zero filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the response shape in the verification case, plus the prerequisite and follow-up tools. The main remaining gap is the consequence of the declared destructive behavior, which an agent would want before calling.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both customerId and entitlements are already documented, including the enum of entitlement names. The description's 'e.g. to add a payment rail' adds only a light gloss on the entitlements parameter; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('apply for one or more entitlements for an existing customer') and gives a concrete example use case ('add a payment rail'). It is clearly distinguishable from the two sibling tools it names, list_available_entitlements and submit_entitlement_requirements.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states the prerequisite ('Check list_available_entitlements first') and the follow-up path ('if Stables needs more verification... send it with submit_entitlement_requirements'). Both the when-to-use and the next-step alternative are spelled out, so nothing is left to inference.

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