get_fan_subscriptionsRetrieves fan subscriptions (accounts the user pays) or subscribers with statistics. Use to list paid subscriptions or fan data with pagination.
subscribed: the fan subscriptions the account pays. subscribers: the account's fans with statistics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page, starting at 1 | |
| type | No | subscribed | |
| count | No | Items per page (max 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that 'subscribers' includes statistics, with no mention of pagination behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or return shape.
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 description is very short and wastes no words, but it is fragmentary and does not front-load the tool's overall purpose. It reads as two enum definitions rather than a structured tool description.
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 read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and schema descriptions for pagination, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits the overall listing purpose and any return-shape context, which matters more because there is no output schema.
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 67%, and the description compensates for the undocumented 'type' enum by defining both 'subscribed' and 'subscribers'. The 'page' and 'count' parameters are already documented in the schema, so the description adds meaningful value where it is most needed.
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 defines the two modes of the tool but never states the overall action explicitly, relying on the name and title to convey that it lists fan subscriptions. It distinguishes the two result sets but does not differentiate this tool from siblings.
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?
Explaining what 'subscribed' and 'subscribers' mean implies which type value to choose, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Pagination usage is left entirely to the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.