Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Podyx MCP

Podyx MCP

by Studio-Red-Barcelona
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

podyx_get_subscription_cancellation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a subscription's current cancellation and monetary state by UUID to preview refund status and cancellation details without making changes.

Instructions

Get subscription cancellation GET /api/v2/subscriptions/{id}/cancellation. Acceptance is an immutable delivery receipt. A refund request reserves a real outstanding obligation; only a studio report of actual success counts returned money. Studio refund UUIDs are independent from HTTP keys. Replacements explicitly name a failed or reversed attempt in the identical frozen scope and share its obligation. GET exposes current money and cancellation state. Recovery requires current key, tenant and owning-resource authority even after new commercial entry is disabled. Provider IDs are never accepted or manufactured. Read/preview only. Follow all pagination; a quote does not reserve a slot or lock a price.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "podyx_get_subscription_cancellation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real behavioral context beyond that: authorization requirements ('current key, tenant and owning-resource authority'), pagination obligation, and that provider IDs are never accepted. These are genuine additions, though phrased so abstractly that their operational value is limited.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a dense run-on of domain jargon ('immutable delivery receipt', 'frozen scope', 'obligation') that is not front-loaded around the tool's actual function. Useful constraints like pagination and read-only behavior are scattered rather than structured.

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?

For a simple read-by-id tool with no output schema and a single undocumented param, the description should clarify the identifier and the returned state. It only glancingly says 'GET exposes current money and cancellation state' and spends most of its length on tangential refund/obligation policy, leaving the calling contract thin.

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

Parameters2/5

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

There is a single required param (path.id, a UUID) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description should explain what it identifies. Instead it never mentions the id path parameter and instead discusses unrelated concepts like keys, tenants, and provider IDs, leaving the param effectively undocumented.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description opens with 'Get subscription cancellation' plus the concrete route GET /api/v2/subscriptions/{id}/cancellation, so the verb and resource are identifiable. However, it never distinguishes this from the sibling podyx_get_cancellation, and the actual purpose is buried under abstract policy prose, so an agent can't confidently separate the two tools.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives despite the closely related podyx_get_cancellation sibling. Fragments like 'Read/preview only' and 'Follow all pagination' imply context, but the agent is left to infer the selection criteria.

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