haus

update_subscription

Partially update an existing subscription; only the fields provided are changed, everything else is left as-is. For renewalCronExpression and notes, sending an empty string clears the stored value rather than leaving it unchanged.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	ID of the subscription to update.
`fee`	No	The recurring charge for this subscription. Omit to leave unchanged.
`name`	No	Display name of the subscription. Omit to leave unchanged.
`notes`	No	Free-text notes about the subscription. Omit to leave unchanged, or send an empty string to clear the notes.
`status`	No	New lifecycle status for the subscription. Omit to leave unchanged.
`remindMe`	No	Whether to send renewal reminders for this subscription
`renewalCronExpression`	No	Cron expression describing how often the subscription renews. Must not repeat more frequently than once a day. Omit to leave unchanged, or send an empty string to clear the renewal schedule.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes
`title`	No
`message`	No
`variant`	No

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable context about partial updates and the empty-string clearing behavior for renewalCronExpression and notes, beyond what annotations provide. It does not cover potential edge cases like status transitions, but it is sufficiently transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, and every word adds value. It is clear, direct, and free of redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (7 params, nested fee object) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the critical non-obvious behaviors: partial updates and clearing semantics. No essential context is missing for an agent to select and use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, with each parameter clearly documented, including the empty-string clearing behavior. The description mostly reiterates schema information rather than adding new semantic nuance, so it does not elevate above the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 clearly states 'Partially update an existing subscription' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from create/delete siblings by focusing on partial updates. The behavior of leaving unspecified fields unchanged adds precision.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context for when to use it (updating existing subscriptions) and explains the partial-update semantics. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the existence of create_subscription and delete_subscription makes the use case obvious.

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

All haus tools Inspect

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

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear descriptions separating similar-sounding tools like create_calendar_event vs create_recurring_calendar_event. Shopping list operations (add, buy, remove, update) are clearly delineated.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*, get_*, etc. Even special operations like store_memory, recall_memory, and skip_recommendation fit the pattern.

Tool Count1/5

With 68 tools, this server vastly exceeds a reasonable scope; the instruction manual indicates 50+ tools is an extreme mismatch. The breadth suggests the server should be split into focused sub-servers (tasks, shopping, calendar, etc.) rather than a single monolithic interface.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers full CRUD/lifecycle for all major resources: tasks, shopping, calendar, contacts, documents, appliances, vehicles, pets, recipes, meal plans, subscriptions, and memories. Additional features like house review, weather, and profile round out the household management domain.

Resources

Need Help?