List available maskr.io credit packages.
Returns all active credit packages for one-time purchase with pricing
and per-credit cost. Use this to help users decide between subscription
plans and credit packs.
Returns:
A summary of available credit packages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and successfully discloses behavioral scope: filters to 'active' packages only, specifies content includes 'pricing and per-credit cost', and clarifies these are for 'one-time purchase'. Minor gap on auth/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?
Efficiently structured with clear front-loading. Minor deduction for slight redundancy between narrative 'Returns all active...' and the 'Returns:' section stating 'A summary...', though both sentences earn their place by serving different documentation conventions.
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?
Complete for a zero-parameter read tool. Given output schema exists (per context signals), the description appropriately focuses on business logic clarification (active packages, pricing details) rather than return value documentation.
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?
Baseline 4 applies as there are 0 parameters. The description appropriately does not invent parameter semantics where none exist.
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 uses specific verb 'List' with specific resource 'maskr.io credit packages' and distinguishes scope by specifying 'one-time purchase' versus subscription plans, clearly differentiating from sibling tool get_plans.
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?
Provides clear usage context ('help users decide between subscription plans and credit packs') implying when to use this vs. subscription options. Would be a 5 if it explicitly named 'get_plans' as the alternative rather than just referencing 'subscription plans'.
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.