Handsome Hosting

List plans

list_plans

Read-only

The plans this running server can move to, as the website plan page lists them: larger ones always, smaller ones only when the current disk fits. Each line carries planId, label, size tier, disk, direction (up or down), chargeNowIls (the difference for the upcoming month or year, 0 for a move down) and recurringIls (the price after, per month or per year by the service cadence, see period), in ILS including VAT.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "serviceId": "<serviceId>"
    },
    "name": "list_plans"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`serviceId`	Yes	the id of a service on this account

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`data`	No
`error`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / serviceId / description

Previous value: -"the service id from list_services"New value: +"the id of a service on this account"

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds genuine behavioral context: the filtering rule for down-moves, the per-line field set, and pricing semantics (chargeNowIls is the difference for the upcoming term, 0 on a move down; recurringIls is the post-move price in ILS including VAT). It does not cover error behavior for an invalid serviceId or pagination, keeping it from a 5.

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 eligibility rule is front-loaded and every clause carries information (field list, currency, cadence). It is one dense run-on sentence with nested parentheticals, which costs some readability but no content is wasted.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers eligibility, returned fields, and pricing interpretation. Minor gaps (pagination, error cases for an unknown serviceId) are not critical given the output schema exists.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and serviceId is documented in the schema. The description refers obliquely to 'this running server' but adds no format, constraint, or error semantics for the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific resource and scope: the plans 'this running server can move to', including the eligibility rule. It does not explicitly name the sibling tool (resize) it complements, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Eligibility conditions (larger always, smaller only when disk fits) imply this is the pre-move/upgrade lookup, but there is no explicit 'use before resize' guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative.

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

All Handsome Hosting tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?