Read a page of private subscriber email addresses and subscription IDs, using limit and offset for pagination.
Read a page of private subscriber email addresses and subscription IDs. Dashboard data may lag recent changes. Use get_subscriber for exact membership checks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| lastSync | No | ||
| subscribers | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation is reinforced by the non-destructive 'Read' wording. The description adds useful behavioral context about privacy and potential lag without contradicting the annotation.
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?
Two short, focused sentences with no redundant wording. Every clause adds value: the action, the data privacy, the lag caveat, and the alternative tool.
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?
Output schema exists, so output fields need no description. The privacy warning, lag caveat, and alternative-tool pointer give sufficient operational context for a straightforward paginated read operation.
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?
limit and offset are not explicitly described, but the phrase 'Read a page' combined with the schema's defaults and bounds makes their pagination role clear enough. Slight extra explanation would be needed for full clarity, but the intent is unambiguous.
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?
Description clearly states the operation ('Read a page'), the resource ('subscriber email addresses and subscription IDs'), and the privacy scope. It also distinguishes this from get_subscriber by directing exact membership checks there.
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?
Explicitly tells agents when not to use this tool ('Use get_subscriber for exact membership checks') and warns about data lag, giving practical context for approximate/bulk membership listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.