Validates the Bearer license key and returns tier, expiry and trial state.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_license_status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the three pieces of information returned, but says nothing about what happens on an invalid or expired key (error vs. false/status field), whether the call is a pure read, or any rate limits.
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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. The action and the returned data are both conveyed immediately.
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 annotations, no parameters, and no output schema, the description is the sole structured signal, and it does list the returned fields. It is still incomplete on failure behavior and on how the Bearer key is presented, which matter for a validation endpoint.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does add one relevant detail beyond the empty schema: the key is supplied as a Bearer credential, indicating the identity comes from the auth header rather than the request body.
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?
States a specific verb ('validates') and resource ('Bearer license key') and names the returned fields (tier, expiry, trial state). It is clearly distinct from siblings such as get_public_stats or list_invoices, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with any of them.
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: call this to check entitlement/tier for the supplied license key. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, no mention of the alternative sources of plan information (e.g., team-related siblings), and no stated prerequisites.
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.