List all actions for a subscription
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of actions to return | |
| offset | No | Number of actions to skip for pagination | |
| subscriptionId | Yes | The subscription whose actions to list |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal extra behavior: it says 'List all actions' which could imply no pagination, but the schema's limit/offset parameters indicate pagination. This minor ambiguity is not a contradiction, but no substantial additional context is provided beyond annotations.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. There is no redundant phrasing or irrelevant detail, making it highly efficient for agent consumption.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, the combination of a clear description, full schema parameter documentation, and comprehensive annotations provides adequate context. No output schema exists, but for a list operation the return shape is reasonably implied. However, the description could have mentioned what an action constitutes or that results are paginated, which would have increased completeness.
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?
All parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for subscriptionId, limit, and offset. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description clearly states the tool lists actions for a subscription with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('actions for a subscription'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like subscription_actions-get (single action) and subscription_actions-create/delete/update by indicating a list operation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios such as 'use this to retrieve all actions, use get for a single action' or any exclusions. The description merely states the function without contextual usage advice.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as signals-firmographics vs companies-enrich_firmographics, findEmail vs contacts-enrich_work_email, and monitors vs signal_subscriptions vs market_signals. While descriptions add some context, an agent could easily select the wrong tool due to the high similarity in function.
Most tools use a resource_subresource-action pattern, but there are inconsistent separators: underscores within some names, hyphens in others (e.g., scoring-assignment-bulk-create), and several camelCase exceptions (findEmail, findEmailBatchGet, getContactResearchByExternalID). This mixed convention makes the tool set feel unpredictable.
With 119 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical well-scoped range. Even for a comprehensive B2B data platform, the sheer number creates cognitive overload and increases the risk of incorrect tool selection.
The server covers an extensive range of operations: enrichment, lists, contacts, signals, subscriptions, monitors, and scoring. Nearly every resource has create, read, update, and delete or lifecycle equivalents, leaving very few practical gaps for the intended use case.
