List the optional add-on subscriptions (RPM upgrades, extra team seats, extended log retention, extra file-delivery storage in +5 GB blocks, …). Each entry is monthly, renews every 30 days until cancelled, and carries scope (per_account or per_project). Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: each entry is monthly, renews every 30 days until cancelled, and carries a scope field (per_account or per_project). It also explicitly says 'Read-only,' consistent with the annotations. This goes beyond the basic safety profile.
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 sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose with a clear verb ('List') and resource ('optional add-on subscriptions') plus illustrative examples. The second sentence adds billing and scope details. No filler or unnecessary repetition; even 'Read-only' serves as a quick safety cue that mirrors annotations.
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 with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what is listed, examples, billing cycle, renewal, and scope. However, it does not clarify the difference from the sibling 'list_active_addons' (e.g., whether inactive or cancelled add-ons are included), which is a minor gap in contextual completeness.
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 no parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. With zero parameters, the description has no parameter details to provide, and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.
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 states the tool lists optional add-on subscriptions, with concrete examples (RPM upgrades, extra team seats, extended log retention, extra file-delivery storage), and specifies the billing model (monthly, 30-day renewal). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_subscription_plans or list_active_addons by focusing on 'add-on subscriptions' and their recurring nature.
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 implies usage for viewing add-on subscriptions and provides context about their monthly renewal and scope field, but it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when to use this tool versus list_active_addons or other add-on/subscription tools. No exclusionary guidance is given.
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.
