Fetch the current user's subscription detail via the QRStuff API.
Returns id, status, billing period, term dates, items with name, quantity, unit_price, amount, period.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| cancelled_at | No | ||
| billing_period | No | ||
| next_billing_at | No | ||
| current_term_end | No | ||
| current_term_start | No | ||
| subscription_items | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the provider (QRStuff API) and the return contents, but says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior when the user has no subscription.
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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The enumerated return fields are mildly redundant with the output schema but remain short and scannable.
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?
A zero-parameter read of a single resource, with an output schema that already documents the return shape and annotations that cover safety. The description supplies everything else an agent needs to call it correctly; only the missing sibling differentiation and auth context hold it back.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline for an empty schema applies. No misleading parameter language is present.
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 and resource: it fetches the current user's subscription detail. An agent immediately knows what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_user_profile or get_account_overview, which an agent might reasonably confuse for subscription/account data.
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 by the purpose — call it when subscription state is needed — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing away from get_account_overview or get_user_profile. Adequate but with a real gap.
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.
