datailo_planSee a service's plan (action: status | enroll | change | discontinue). Everything is free during the beta: there is no paid plan to choose, nothing is charged and no checkout link is returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tier | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| service | Yes | ||
| session | No | The `session` value datailo_connect_verify returned. Pass it on every Datailo call in this conversation; omit it when the user connected with Sign in (OAuth) or a key. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / session / descriptionPrevious value: -"The `session` value datailo_connect_verify returned, when this client keeps no connection session. Pass it on every Datailo call in this conversation; omit it when the user connected with Sign in (OAuth) or a key."New value: +"The `session` value datailo_connect_verify returned. Pass it on every Datailo call in this conversation; omit it when the user connected with Sign in (OAuth) or a key."Input schema / properties / sessionAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "The `session` value datailo_connect_verify returned, when this client keeps no connection session. Pass it on every Datailo call in this conversation; omit it when the user connected with Sign in (OAuth) or a key.",
+ "title": "Session"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the beta is free, nothing is charged, and no checkout link is returned. That last point is genuinely useful because it tells the agent not to expect or promise a checkout URL after enroll. It stops short of describing what 'discontinue' actually does to a service's 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action enumeration and followed by the beta-billing caveat. No filler, though the second sentence could be tightened into the first.
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?
With no output schema, the description does well to disclose that no checkout link is returned, but it leaves gaps for a mutation-capable tool: the effect of 'discontinue', how 'tier' interacts with the free beta, and what 'service' should reference. Annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining omissions are moderate rather than critical.
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?
Schema coverage is only 25% (the session param is the only one documented), so the description must compensate. It does enumerate the four valid 'action' values, which is real added meaning, but says nothing about the 'service' identifier format or the 'tier' parameter beyond the vague hint that no paid plan exists to choose.
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 names the resource ('a service's plan') and enumerates the exact action modes (status | enroll | change | discontinue), so an agent knows the tool handles plan lifecycle operations. The leading verb 'See' undersells the mutating actions (enroll/change/discontinue), which creates mild ambiguity about read vs write, but the action list resolves it.
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 action enum implies what modes exist, but there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like datailo_account or datailo_catalog, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer that plan management belongs here rather than being told.
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.