Skip to main content
Glama

Disco

by com.leap-labs

discovery_subscribe

DestructiveIdempotent

Subscribe to or change your Disco plan.

Available plans:
- "free_tier": Explorer — free, 10 credits/month
- "tier_1": Researcher — $49/month, 500 credits/month
- "tier_2": Team — $199/month, 2000 credits/month

Paid plans require a payment method on file. Credits roll over on paid plans.

Args:
    plan: Plan tier ID ("free_tier", "tier_1", or "tier_2").
    api_key: Disco API key (disco_...). Optional if DISCOVERY_API_KEY env var is set.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
planYes
api_keyNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations include idempotentHint and destructiveHint. The description adds useful context about payment method requirements and credit rollover, but does not explain the destructive implications of changing plans (e.g., potential loss of current plan features). It does not contradict the annotations, but it doesn't fully elaborate on the destructive behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, a bulleted list of plans, and an args section. Each sentence provides relevant information, with no filler or redundancy. It is slightly long but remains concise given the level of detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers key aspects: plan options, pricing, payment requirement, credit rollover, and API key handling. Since an output schema exists, return details are not required. It lacks error handling or side-effect details, but overall it is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description compensates by defining valid plan values ('free_tier', 'tier_1', 'tier_2') and explaining the api_key format and optionality. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's simple type declarations.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it is for subscribing to or changing a Disco plan, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like discovery_purchase_credits and discovery_list_plans by focusing on the plan subscription/change action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides context (plan details, payment requirement, credits rollover) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as discovery_purchase_credits. It implies usage for plan management but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Disco toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct operation (account, payment, analysis, plans, login flows, etc.) with no overlap. Even paired tools like signup/login and their verify counterparts are clearly differentiated.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'discovery_' prefix + verb_noun pattern (e.g., discovery_add_payment_method, discovery_get_results). No mixed conventions or vague names.

Tool Count5/5

14 tools cover account management, analysis pipeline, and billing without unnecessary redundancy. The scope is well-matched to the server's purpose.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full user journey from signup and payment to running analyses and retrieving results. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit cancellation of subscriptions), but the core workflow is fully supported.

Resources