List upcoming subscription payments sorted by next expected payment date (soonest first). Returns subscription name, expected amount, currency, next payment date, and category. Only active subscriptions with an expectedAmount are included.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Filter by type: "subscription", "bill", or "installment" | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of upcoming payments to return. Default: 5 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the sort order, the return fields, and the filtering criteria (only active subscriptions with expectedAmount). It does not mention pagination behavior or what happens if limit is omitted, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.
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?
Two sentences with no waste. The sorting and scope constraints are front-loaded, followed by return fields and filtering criteria. Every phrase adds value.
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's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It could note that results are limited by the 'limit' parameter or mention the default, but it already covers scope, sort, and return. Minor gaps remain.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% – both parameters are fully described in the schema, including the enum values for 'type' and the default for 'limit'. The description does not add any syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (List) and resource (upcoming subscription payments) with an explicit sort order (next expected payment date, soonest first). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_subscriptions (all subscriptions) or get_subscription_by_id (single lookup).
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 through its scope ('upcoming', 'active subscriptions with an expectedAmount') but does not explicitly say when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_subscriptions or get_subscriptions_summary. The inclusion criteria act as implicit guidance.
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.