@yawlabs/lemonsqueezy-mcp

ls_get_license_key_instance

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific license key activation by its ID to view instance name and creation date. Use this to verify activation details for a license key.

Instructions

Get a specific license key instance (activation) by ID, including instance name and creation date.

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": {
      "licenseKeyInstanceId": "<licenseKeyInstanceId>"
    },
    "name": "ls_get_license_key_instance"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`include`	No	Comma-separated related resources to include (e.g. 'license-key')
`licenseKeyInstanceId`	Yes	The license key instance ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.10.10May 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it returns instance name and creation date, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple get by ID operation, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the return fields (instance name and creation date). Annotations cover safety aspects. It could mention that the response includes additional fields, but the phrase 'including' implies there is more.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (licenseKeyInstanceId and include). The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions the ID implicitly. Baseline score 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action (Get), the resource (specific license key instance), and what is returned (instance name and creation date). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ls_list_license_key_instances which lists all instances.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when you have a specific license key instance ID, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over siblings like ls_list_license_key_instances or ls_get_license_key. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server