lago_list_subscriptionsList subscriptions, optionally filtered by customer, plan, or status. Lago API: GET /subscriptions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number for pagination. | |
| status | No | Filter by a single status: active | pending | canceled | terminated. Default active. | |
| per_page | No | Number of records per page. | |
| plan_code | No | Filter by plan code. | |
| external_customer_id | No | Filter by customer external 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds no behavioral details beyond listing and filtering, missing pagination 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?
Single sentence plus API reference; no unnecessary words, front-loaded with action and resource.
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?
Adequate for a list tool with fully documented optional parameters and annotations; lacks return format but no output schema expected.
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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal context beyond schema descriptions, only noting that filters are optional.
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 verb 'List' and resource 'subscriptions', with optional filters. Distinguishes from single-subscription tool but not explicitly from customer-specific list sibling.
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?
Implies usage for listing subscriptions with optional filters, but does not provide guidance on when to use this versus lago_list_customer_subscriptions or other list 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.