Read active plans and current prices from the academy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | Optional fallback: your agent_signup token or paired agent key, only if your MCP client can't send an Authorization: Bearer header (the header is preferred and wins). Treated exactly like the header; never shown back. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / tokenAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional fallback: your agent_signup token or paired agent key, only if your MCP client can't send an Authorization: Bearer header (the header is preferred and wins). Treated exactly like the header; never shown back.",
+ "maxLength": 200,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the useful scope qualifiers 'active' (filters out retired plans) and 'current' (prices not historical), but says nothing about auth requirements or the shape of a returned plan.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and its scope come first, and nothing is repeated from the title or schema.
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-required-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description is nearly sufficient: an agent knows it returns pricing for active plans. With no output schema, it would still help to know what a plan record contains (name, interval, currency), which is the one remaining gap.
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?
There is exactly one optional parameter and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, including the header-preferred fallback semantics and the 'never shown back' guarantee. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, so the baseline 3 for high coverage is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('active plans and current prices') with the scope qualifier 'active'. An agent can tell this apart from sibling catalog tools like list_courses or get_premium_lesson, though the description never explicitly distinguishes itself from the paid-subscription siblings (subscribe_link).
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the phrase 'active plans and current prices' tells the agent what it will receive, so when to reach for it (pricing/subscription decisions) is inferable. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named.
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.