Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
remnawave-mcp

remnawave-mcp

by 3APA3A-3AHO3A
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_subscriptions

Read-only

Retrieve all subscriptions from a Remnawave panel with pagination controls for start index and result size.

Instructions

Get all subscriptions [READ] GET /api/subscriptions/

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_subscriptions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sizeNoNumber of subscriptions to return, no more than 500
startNoStart index (offset) of the users to return, default is 0

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — the "[READ] GET /api/subscriptions/" tag merely restates the read-only annotation and offers no detail on pagination behavior, result envelope, or access requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Very short and front-loaded, with the core action stated first. The bracketed endpoint tag is arguably redundant noise but does not bloat the definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of conveying what is returned, yet it says nothing about the response shape or pagination envelope. For a list tool with sibling overlap, it is under-specified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both the size and start parameters fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about pagination or ordering beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Get all subscriptions"), and the word "all" signals a bulk-list operation as opposed to the many single-subscription siblings like get_subscription_by_id or get_subscription_by_username. It does not, however, explicitly name or differentiate itself from those siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the numerous subscription-related alternatives (get_subscription_by_id, get_subscription_by_username, get_subscription_settings, etc.). The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the list-all variant.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools