Retrieve the subscription IDs linked to a specific subscription group, with an optional limit for pagination, to inspect or manage group membership.
GET /v1/subscriptionGroups/{id}/relationships/subscriptions (GET /v1/subscriptionGroups/{id}/relationships/subscriptions)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the id of the requested resource | |
| limit | No | maximum resources per page |
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, yet it discloses nothing: no pagination behavior despite a 'limit' parameter, no note that this is a read-only operation, no rate-limit or auth context, and no description of the returned linkage data. Only the HTTP verb 'GET' hints at a read.
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 single sentence is short but entirely wasted: it repeats the identical URL string twice with no added information, which is duplication rather than conciseness. No useful content is front-loaded because there is no useful content.
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 sibling that differs only by 'related' vs 'relationship', the description should at minimum explain the difference and the shape of the returned collection. It explains neither, leaving the agent unable to call this correctly versus its near-twin.
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% (both 'id' and 'limit' are documented in the schema), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it does not explain the id's scope or pagination semantics.
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 tool name as a URL path, duplicated twice in parentheses. It conveys no purpose beyond what the name already encodes (list subscriptions related to a subscription group), and it does nothing to distinguish this from the sibling subscription_groups_subscriptions_get_to_many_related.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the closely-named 'related' sibling, and no indication of when this relationship endpoint is preferred over the related endpoint or over fetching the subscription group itself. Only the URL path implies any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.