Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Stables MCP Server

Stables MCP Server

Official
by stables-money
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Submit entitlement requirements

submit_entitlement_requirements
Destructive

Submit missing verification data Stables requested for a customer entitlement, including required documents as base64, to complete pending verification.

Instructions

Send further verification data Stables asked for on a requested entitlement. The fields are those of the customer record in snake_case (e.g. tax_id_number, address, financial_profile, id_documents, proof_of_address_documents); send only what is missing. Documents are base64 data.

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>",
      "entitlement": "<entitlement>",
      "requirements": "<requirements>"
    },
    "name": "submit_entitlement_requirements"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
customerIdYesThe customer ID
entitlementYesThe entitlement name, e.g. 'aed_local'
requirementsYesThe missing fields, snake_case as in the Update Customer reference

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.6.11
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / requirements / propertyNames
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv2.4.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, destructive operation, so the description has a lower burden. The description adds useful context that only missing fields should be sent and documents are base64 data, but it does not explain what existing data may be replaced or what side effects submission triggers.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by practical formatting guidance and the key 'send only what is missing' constraint. Every sentence adds useful information without unnecessary preamble.

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?

The description covers the nested requirements object well, including field naming, examples, and document encoding, and annotations cover the destructive/non-idempotent profile. However, it omits what happens after submission, whether prior verification data is overwritten, and any prerequisite that the entitlement must already be in a requested state.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining that the requirements object uses customer-record fields in snake_case and by giving concrete examples such as tax_id_number, financial_profile, and id_documents. It also clarifies that documents must be base64 data.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: send further verification data for a requested entitlement. It distinguishes the action from merely requesting an entitlement, though it does not explicitly name the closest sibling tools such as submit_rfi_evidence or request_entitlements.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives implied usage context: use when Stables has asked for further verification data on a requested entitlement, and send only missing fields. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of related sibling tools like submit_rfi_evidence, add_document, or request_entitlements.

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