gumroad_list_resource_subscriptionsList the authenticated user's resource subscriptions (webhooks) for a given resource/event name. Gumroad REST: GET /v2/resource_subscriptions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource_name | Yes | The resource/event name whose webhook subscriptions to list. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context (authenticated user scope) but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or other nuances. No contradiction with annotations.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and no redundant information. The REST endpoint reference is a useful addition without becoming verbose.
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 list tool with one parameter and readOnlyHint, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It does not describe the return format, but the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of listing subscriptions makes it sufficiently complete.
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 description's 'resource/event name' mirrors the schema's parameter description. No additional semantic value is provided 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 the action ('List'), the resource ('resource subscriptions (webhooks)'), and the scope ('authenticated user's... for a given resource/event name'). It differentiates from sibling list tools by specifying webhooks, making it unambiguous.
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 clear context for when to use the tool: to list webhook subscriptions for a specific resource/event name. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but given no other webhook tools exist among siblings, the context is sufficient.
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.