Retrieves all prices linked to a subscription ID, helping you audit or modify subscription pricing.
GET /v1/subscriptions/{id}/relationships/prices (GET /v1/subscriptions/{id}/relationships/prices)
| 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. The HTTP verb GET implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose pagination behavior, authorization requirements, response shape, or any other operational context.
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 short but consists of a duplicated endpoint path with no explanatory content. It is not front-loaded with useful information, and the repetition wastes the only sentence it has.
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?
For a two-parameter relationship list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It does not explain what prices are returned, how pagination works, or what the id refers to beyond the schema's minimal note.
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 id and limit parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning for either parameter; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 only repeats the HTTP method and path, effectively restating the tool name rather than explaining the operation in natural language. It hints at retrieving the prices relationship for a subscription, but it offers no clarification or differentiation from the sibling subscriptions_prices_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 guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as the related endpoint or other subscription price tools. The agent must infer everything from the path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.