get_plansMediawork's subscription plans: what each includes, and its prices. Prices are published in several currencies — pass currency to return just one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | Two-letter language code (en, fr, es, pt, it, de, nl, pl, th, hi, ko, ja). Defaults to English. | |
| currency | No | ISO currency code, e.g. USD, GBP, EUR |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns plan details and prices, and that passing currency returns just one currency. It does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or side effects, but for a get operation this is somewhat implied. It could add more context about response behavior or defaults, but it is adequately transparent for a simple read.
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 description is concise, two sentences long, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence provides useful information without fluff or repetition.
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 simple read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the return content (plans, inclusions, prices) and the currency filtering behavior. It does not mention the locale parameter, but the schema covers that. The overall complexity is low, so the description is sufficient.
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 input schema already fully describes both parameters (locale and currency) with 100% coverage, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful behavior: passing currency filters the output to a single currency, which is not mentioned in the schema. This extra semantic clarity justifies a score above baseline.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves subscription plans and pricing, specifying the resource (subscription plans) and the action (get). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like list_services or get_facility, which focus on other domains.
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 gives context that this is for Mediawork's subscription plans and mentions the currency parameter for filtering, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.
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.