Fetch a specific subscription by ID to view its status, plan details, and payment terms in OrcaRail MCP.
Retrieve a subscription by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Subscription ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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. However, the description adds no behavioral context of its own — nothing about what happens on a missing/invalid ID, whether the returned object is expanded, or any rate/consistency behavior. It repeats no structured data but contributes none either.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Nothing can be trimmed and the key discriminator (by ID) is stated immediately.
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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits any note about failure modes or what the returned subscription contains, but with no output schema expected this is an acceptable, if thin, definition.
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% and the single id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only restates 'by ID' and adds no format, prefix, or lookup-source detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a subscription') scoped by ID, so an agent knows exactly what it does. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like subscriptions.list or payment_intents.retrieve, which is the only missing element for a 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as subscriptions.list when the caller lacks an ID, nor any prerequisite or error guidance. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the required id parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.