chargebee_list_itemsList Product Catalog 2.0 items (plans, addons, charges). Filter by type. Chargebee API: GET /items.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Item type filter (→ type[is]). | |
| limit | No | Max results per page (Chargebee max 100). | |
| offset | No | Opaque pagination token from a previous response's `next_offset`. |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that by adding the HTTP method 'GET /items'. It does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or response-shape details, but for a simple read-only list the annotation plus the endpoint are adequate. No contradiction.
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 short sentences with no filler. The resource and item categories are front-loaded, the filtering capability follows, and the API endpoint is a useful compact addition. Every clause contributes information.
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?
The description is complete enough for invoking a simple, read-only list operation: all parameters are documented in the schema, the endpoint is given, and the read-only annotation covers the safety profile. It lacks an explicit contrast with list_item_prices and does not describe the response shape, but neither is critical given the low complexity and absence of required parameters.
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%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description mentions the type filter and the API endpoint, but it does not add meaning beyond what the enum and parameter descriptions already provide.
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 names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('Product Catalog 2.0 items'), and enumerates the item types (plans, addons, charges). This clearly identifies what the tool does and helps distinguish it from item-price listing 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 description states that items can be filtered by type, but gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives like chargebee_list_item_prices. There are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use instructions.
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.