The published catalogue with live prices and which payment methods each plan accepts. Prices are never hardcoded; read them here.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_plans"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating that prices are 'never hardcoded' and should be read from this tool, indicating live data. Without annotations, it covers the read-only nature implicitly, but it does not disclose rate limits, response pagination, or exact return structure.
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 two short sentences that immediately convey the core purpose without any redundant information. It is front-loaded with the main idea and every phrase earns its place.
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-parameter list tool, the description covers the essential output: plans, prices, and payment methods. The lack of an output schema means the exact response format is unspecified, but the description is sufficient for a simple catalogue.
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 the description has no obligation to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema.
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 identifies the tool as a catalogue of plans with live prices and acceptable payment methods, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that manage tunnels or leases. While the verb is implicit ('catalogue' implies listing), it is specific and unambiguous.
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?
The phrase 'read them here' implies this tool is the source for plan pricing and details, giving some usage direction. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as referencing lease_status for active leases.
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.