Retrieve current subscription settings from the Remnawave panel to review configuration values. Use this to inspect subscription behavior before making changes.
GET /api/subscription-settings Get subscription settings Tags: Subscription Settings Controller
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It implies a read via 'GET' but says nothing about authentication requirements, permissions scope, whether the response is cached, or what the settings object contains. Only the controller tag and route are added, which is metadata rather than behavior.
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?
The text is short and front-loaded, which is good, but the 'Tags: Subscription Settings Controller' line is generated metadata noise that adds nothing for an agent. The remaining two clauses are redundant with each other and with the tool name.
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 zero-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum describe what configuration surface is returned or who may read it. It provides none of that, leaving the agent to guess what 'subscription settings' covers relative to the sibling update tool and other settings endpoints.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter information the description could or should add beyond what the empty schema already conveys.
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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name: 'Get subscription settings' plus the raw HTTP route 'GET /api/subscription-settings'. It does not distinguish this tool from its obvious sibling subscription_settings_update_settings, nor explain what settings are involved. This is tautological rather than explanatory.
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 guidance about when to call this versus subscription_settings_update_settings or other settings endpoints. The only implicit cue is the HTTP verb GET, which the agent could already infer from the tool name. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.