listar_planosLista todos os planos e assinaturas oferecidos, com preços, período (mensal/anual/trial) e descrições.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plans | Yes | ||
| total | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "plans": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "description": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "included_items": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "period": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "price": {
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name",
+ "price",
+ "period"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "total": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "plans",
+ "total"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful return-content context (prices, monthly/annual/trial periods, descriptions), but does not discuss pagination, filtering, or rate limits.
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 redundant or filler content. Every clause contributes to what is listed and what data is returned.
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 simple zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description provides enough context to call it correctly. No critical behavioral or usage information is missing.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 applies.
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 and resource: listing all offered plans/subscriptions, including prices and billing periods. The resource is clearly distinct from sibling product/category tools, though it does not explicitly name them for differentiation.
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 by 'Lista todos' and the zero-parameter schema, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or whether filters exist elsewhere.
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.