List billing subscriptions and device licenses from Slide backup/BDR resources with pagination support, providing read-only data for AI assistants.
List subscriptions and device licenses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of items to return per page. Defaults to 10. | |
| offset | No | Starting index for pagination. Defaults to 0. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only collection operation, but the description does not clarify whether the result is a combined stream, filtered, or paginated beyond schema defaults, and it says nothing about response 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?
'List subscriptions and device licenses.' is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. It is appropriately concise for a simple paginated list operation.
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 list tool with fully documented optional pagination parameters, the description is near-sufficient, but the lack of annotations and output schema leaves behavioral and return-value context underexplained. 'And device licenses' introduces some ambiguity about what is actually returned.
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 description coverage is 100%: limit and offset both have explicit descriptions with defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names the resource ('subscriptions and device licenses'), so an agent can infer this is a collection-fetching tool. It adds useful scope beyond the tool name but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling billing list tools like slide_list_billing_invoices.
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?
The purpose statement implies this tool is for retrieving billing subscription and device license records, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. An agent must infer that other billing list tools are for invoices or credit memos from their names rather than from this description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.