Retrieve the subscription grace period settings for a specific app to review opt-in, duration, and renewal type for subscriptions.
GET /v1/apps/{id}/subscriptionGracePeriod (GET /v1/apps/{id}/subscriptionGracePeriod)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the id of the requested resource | |
| fields_subscriptionGracePeriods | No | the fields to include for returned resources of type subscriptionGracePeriods |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the HTTP method. It does not say whether this is a safe read, what the grace-period object contains, whether an app without a grace period returns an error or empty, or anything about caching or rate limits.
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?
It is short, but the same string appears twice with no added information, so the duplication is pure noise rather than efficient structure. This is under-specification masquerading as conciseness, not a tight, front-loaded summary.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a resource that is not self-explanatory (what a subscription grace period is and when it applies), the description is completely inadequate for correct invocation and interpretation of the result.
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%, so the schema already documents both the required 'id' path parameter and the sparse-fieldset parameter. The description adds nothing on top of that, which is the expected baseline of 3 when the schema does the work.
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 is a verbatim restatement of the endpoint path, duplicated twice in parentheses. It does hint at the resource (an app's subscriptionGracePeriod) and the read verb via 'GET', but it adds no explanation of what the resource is or how it differs from the sibling apps_subscription_grace_period_get_to_one_relationship.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the near-identical siblings (apps_subscription_grace_period_get_to_one_relationship, subscription_grace_periods_get_instance) that an agent must choose between. The agent is left to infer everything from the URL.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.