Retrieve a subscription grace period by ID to view opt-in, sandbox opt-in, duration, and renewal type settings, with optional field selection.
GET /v1/subscriptionGracePeriods/{id} (GET /v1/subscriptionGracePeriods/{id})
| 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 behavioral burden and delivers nothing: no read-only assurance, no permission/scope requirements, no mention of what is returned or whether the grace period can be scoped by app. The duplicated route text adds no behavioral information at all.
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?
The description is exceedingly short, but its content is a literal duplication of the same route string in parentheses, so the second half is pure waste. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
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?
A two-parameter lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to cover at least the returned resource shape and auth expectations; none of that is present. Given the tool's low complexity and full schema coverage the gap is not catastrophic, but the definition is still inadequate for reliable invocation.
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 both the required id and the fields_subscriptionGracePeriods sparse-fieldset parameter are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or sparse-fieldset semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 bare restatement of the HTTP route, duplicated verbatim in parentheses, which effectively repeats the tool name rather than explaining what the tool does. It does convey a read of a single subscriptionGracePeriods resource by id, but it offers no distinction from the very large set of sibling *_get_instance tools.
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 mention of alternatives such as subscription_grace_periods_update_instance or the collection-level accessor, and no prerequisites or auth context. An agent is left to infer everything from the route string.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.