check_character_subscriptionsPoll Warcraft Logs for new reports associated with character subscriptions and advance their cursors. Omit subscription ID to check all active subscriptions.
Poll WCL for new reports and advance subscription cursors. Omit subscriptionID to check all subscriptions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| subscriptionID | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the key behavioral trait: advancing subscription cursors, which implies state changes and explains why readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. It adds useful context beyond the annotations, such as the external polling nature and the fact that checking advances state.
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 sentences deliver the core action, the side effect, and parameter behavior with no filler. The most important behavioral detail (polling and cursor advancement) is front-loaded.
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 tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the necessary invocation details: what the tool does, what the optional parameter means, and how to check all subscriptions. It does not describe the response shape, but the absence of an output schema lowers that expectation.
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?
The parameter schema has no description and 0% coverage, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly explains the meaning of omitting subscriptionID and implies that providing it checks a single subscription. This is meaningful guidance for the one optional parameter.
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 uses a specific verb ('Poll WCL') and names the resource ('new reports') and the side effect ('advance subscription cursors'). It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like list_character_subscriptions by emphasizing polling and cursor advancement rather than just listing subscriptions.
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?
The description provides concrete usage context: omit subscriptionID to check all subscriptions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the semantics are clear enough for an agent to know when to call this tool versus the read-only listing or subscription management tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.