get_subscription_statusReturn the current Poly-Glot trial or Pro entitlement and current pricing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| view | Yes | ||
| entitlement | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that the result is 'current' and covers entitlement plus pricing, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as authentication requirements or whether the status is fetched live or cached. No contradiction exists.
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, tight sentence that front-loads the action and the exact resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant or filler content.
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, read-only status tool with an output schema present and safety annotations provided, the description is fully adequate. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.
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 baseline of 4 applies. The description needs to convey no parameter meaning, and the input schema is vacuously complete.
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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('current Poly-Glot trial or Pro entitlement and current pricing'). This is unambiguous and distinct from all listed sibling tools, none of which cover subscription status.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever an agent needs the user's current subscription entitlement or pricing. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are needed because no sibling tool serves a similar purpose.
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 are clearly separated by resource and action, but translate_text/localize_text and prepare_compare/prepare_custom_compare have adjacent purposes that could cause an agent to choose one when the other is intended. Descriptions provide enough distinction for a careful model, so the ambiguity is limited.
All 15 tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern with verbs like build, detect, get, localize, open, prepare, run, search, transcribe, translate, and validate. There is no mixing of camelCase, vague imperative fragments, or generic action names.
15 tools is at the upper edge of a well-scoped set, and each functional area has dedicated tools. It is slightly heavy because a few pairs like translate/localize and prepare_compare/prepare_custom_compare are close variations, but the count is still reasonable for the server's broad workspace scope.
Core workflows are covered: template search/get/fill, translation and localization, custom model capabilities/validation/run, compare plan preparation, transcription, and entitlement checks. Gaps include no compare-plan execution tool, no template create/update/delete lifecycle, and no persistence for custom model configurations, but agents can work around these.