Get the project owner's current subscription: plan, active flag, period start/end, cancel-at-period-end flag, external Paddle subscription id, and whether a payment method is on file at the provider. Owner-only; requires a token minted with the billing scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds meaningful context: it enumerates the returned fields, specifies the ownership restriction, and notes the required billing scope. This gives the agent a richer operational picture than the annotations alone.
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 a compact two-sentence structure with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds essential access constraints, making it highly efficient and scannable.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description fully covers the agent's needs: exactly what data is returned and the prerequisites for invocation. There is no ambiguity about the action or its outcomes.
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 schema provides no parameter semantics. Per the baseline rule for zero-parameter tools, the description need not add parameter details. The description appropriately explains the fixed output, so a baseline of 4 is fitting.
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 operation ('Get the project owner's current subscription') and lists the exact data returned (plan, active flag, period start/end, cancel-at-period flag, Paddle subscription ID, payment method status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_billing by focusing specifically on subscription details.
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 description provides clear access constraints: 'Owner-only' and 'requires a token minted with the billing scope.' This tells the agent who can use it and what credentials are needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance beyond the ownership restriction.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources and the descriptions are unusually explicit, but the billing cluster (change_plan/cancel_subscription and the many add-on actions) plus the preview/diff tools overlap and could cause mis-selection. config_diff, dry_run_endpoint, and preview_line_draft all read as 'preview what will change' at first glance despite different scopes.
The overwhelming majority follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, set_*, update_*, delete_*. It is only held back by a few naming outliers such as config_diff and default_endpoint_template, which break the verb-first convention.
78 tools is an extreme mismatch for an MCP server surface, even accounting for the broad management/relay domain. Such a large surface will overwhelm model context and make tool selection materially harder; this would be better split into focused servers for configuration, data-plane operations, and billing.
The tool surface is very thorough: projects, lines, endpoints, credentials, keys, configs/drafts, DLQ, requests, metrics, audit, team, and billing are all represented. Only minor gaps exist, such as no direct single-line get/update and the intentional inability to widen the outbound allowlist or lift archive protection via API.
