List available maskr.io subscription plans.
Returns all active subscription plans with monthly pricing, credit
allowances, and badges. Use this to help users choose the right plan
for their usage.
Returns:
A summary of available subscription plans.
| 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 the full burden of disclosure, successfully detailing the returned data structure including 'monthly pricing, credit allowances, and badges' and the scope ('all active'). It could be improved by mentioning authentication requirements or cache behavior, but adequately covers the core read-only semantics.
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?
The four-sentence structure is appropriately front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by behavioral details and usage guidance. The final 'Returns:' section is slightly redundant given the existence of an output schema, but remains concise and doesn't significantly obscure the description.
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 presence of an output schema (per context signals), the description appropriately augments it with semantic details about specific fields (pricing, allowances, badges) rather than just structural information. The coverage is sufficient for this simple read-only tool with no side effects.
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?
Per the evaluation rules, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4. The description correctly omits parameter discussion since the input schema is empty, focusing instead on behavioral description without wasting space on non-existent arguments.
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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'maskr.io subscription plans', clearly defining the tool's scope and domain. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like `remove_background` and `get_account_balance` by specifying this retrieves subscription plan metadata with pricing details.
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 phrase 'Use this to help users choose the right plan for their usage' provides clear context for when to invoke the tool during user onboarding or plan comparisons. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this versus the sibling `get_packages` tool.
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.