lago_list_customer_subscriptionsList a customer's subscriptions. Lago API: GET /customers/{external_customer_id}/subscriptions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| external_customer_id | Yes | The customer external unique identifier. |
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 description adds the API endpoint but no behavioral details beyond what annotations provide (readOnlyHint). No mention of pagination, error handling, or rate limits.
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 with no redundant information. Directly states purpose and API endpoint.
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?
Lacks details on output format, pagination, or ordering. For a list operation, some context about the return structure would improve completeness, but the simple scope (1 param, no output schema) keeps the gap moderate.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, which already has a description. The tool description does not add any new meaning or usage details for the parameter.
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?
Clearly states 'List a customer's subscriptions' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tool 'lago_list_subscriptions' by specifying per-customer scope.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the name implies per-customer context, the description does not specify use cases or mention sibling tools.
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 targets a distinct entity and action (e.g., lago_get_customer vs. lago_create_customer, lago_list_invoices vs. lago_get_invoice), with no overlapping purposes. The separation between analytics, customer, invoice, subscription, and other resource types is clear.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lower_snake_case and the 'lago_' prefix. Actions like 'get', 'list', 'create', and 'retrieve-related' (e.g., lago_get_customer_current_usage) are uniform, making the naming predictable.
With 24 tools, the server covers a broad range of billing/analytics operations. While slightly high, each tool serves a distinct purpose for reading or creating core entities and analytics. The count is well-scoped for its domain.
The server overwhelmingly focuses on read operations (list/get) with only two write tools (create_customer, create_event). Missing CRUD for invoices, subscriptions, plans, add-ons, coupons, credit notes, and wallets limits agents to mostly read-only workflows, creating significant gaps for managing billing lifecycles.