chargebee_get_subscriptionRetrieve a single subscription by id. Chargebee API: GET /subscriptions/{subscription_id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| subscription_id | Yes | Chargebee subscription id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation, and the description confirms it with 'Retrieve' and GET. It could add more context such as behavior on invalid or missing IDs, but for a simple read the annotation and description together are adequate.
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?
One concise sentence states the action, resource, and API endpoint with no filler. The key information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.
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 minimal read-only tool with one well-documented parameter, the description is sufficient. It might mention that the response contains the subscription object or that a missing ID might return an error, but those are optional for this simple operation.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter subscription_id is already described in the schema. The description adds only the URL path context, not meaningful new semantic information beyond the schema.
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 a specific verb and resource: retrieving a single subscription by ID. It also includes the exact Chargebee API endpoint, which removes ambiguity and distinguishes it from list-style tools.
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 context is clear: use this when you need one subscription and have its ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives like chargebee_list_subscriptions, but the contrast with 'single' versus 'list' is evident without needing further explanation.
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.
Each tool maps to a distinct resource-action pair (e.g., create_customer, get_invoice, list_subscriptions). The get/list distinction is clear, and there is no overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tools follow a consistent `chargebee_<verb>_<resource>` snake_case pattern. Verbs are limited to create, get, list, and update, which are used uniformly across resources.
With 13 tools covering customers, invoices, subscriptions, coupons, credit notes, items, item prices, and transactions, the count is appropriate for a subscription billing platform. It is neither overly sparse nor bloated.
The tool set provides strong read coverage (lists and gets) but limited write operations. Only customer creation and updates are supported; subscriptions, invoices, and other key resources lack create/update/delete operations, making it incomplete for full lifecycle management.