Get pricing package
get_pricing_packageGet the current pricing package for a site.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site_id | Yes | Site ID |
get_pricing_packageGet the current pricing package for a site.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site_id | Yes | Site ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a 'current' temporal nuance, but does not disclose error behavior, return shape, or any special conditions.
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, well-structured sentence with no filler. The main action and scope are front-loaded, making the purpose immediately clear.
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 read-only tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is almost complete. It clearly states what is retrieved and for which entity; only the exact return fields are unspecified, which is a minor gap here.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter, site_id, described as 'Site ID'. The description adds no format, constraints, or extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the schema carries the burden.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('current pricing package'), and scopes it to a site. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_site and get_user.
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 the name and description: use this when you need the current pricing package for a site. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare it with alternative tools.
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.