list_character_subscriptionsView locally stored character report subscriptions and their cursors to track ongoing data synchronization.
List locally persisted character report subscriptions and their cursors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and destructive hints. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by clarifying that subscriptions are 'locally persisted' and that the result includes cursors, which is not encoded in the schema or annotations.
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?
A single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and object while including only essential qualifiers: 'locally persisted' and 'cursors'.
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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It states what is returned ('subscriptions and their cursors'), though it does not specify the exact return shape or empty-list behavior, which would be more important if an output schema were absent.
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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters because there are none.
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 ('List') and names a concrete resource ('locally persisted character report subscriptions') plus the additional detail that cursors are included. It clearly conveys what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely named sibling check_character_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?
No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over check_character_subscriptions or the subscribe/unsubscribe siblings. The tool's read-only nature is implied by the verb, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.