Retrieve RevenueCat active subscriptions, trials, MRR, and 28-day revenue, then compare active subscriptions at the end of a chosen window against the prior period.
RevenueCat active subscriptions, trials, MRR and 28-day revenue now, plus active subscriptions at the end of this
window against the end of the previous one. project is a RevenueCat project id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| project | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It describes the metric set and the current-vs-previous-window comparison, but never states that this is a read-only report, what the window length is, whether data is cached or rate-limited, or what the response looks like.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the metric inventory, and no filler. Dense but every clause carries information about what comes back.
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 output schema the description usefully enumerates return values, and it clarifies the one required parameter. However, the window parameter that determines the entire time scope is left undefined, which is a material gap for calling the tool correctly.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `project` as a RevenueCat project id, but never mentions `days`, its unit, or its default of 7 — 'this window' is gestured at without tying it to the parameter that controls it.
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 names the specific metrics returned (active subscriptions, trials, MRR, 28-day revenue) plus the period-over-period comparison, so the resource and output are clear. The verb is implicit rather than stated ('returns/reports'), and it never names a sibling like `proceeds` to draw the boundary, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Listing the metrics implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no routing against `proceeds` or `events`, which overlap on revenue figures. The agent must infer the choice from the metric names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.