Retrieve the current user's subscriptions, with options to limit results, order by creation or update date, and include archived subscriptions.
Get subscriptions for the current user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| orderBy | No | ||
| includeArchived | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no behavioral details (e.g., pagination behavior or subscription scope). Given annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate—the description does not contradict but adds minimal value.
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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan. No redundancy or filler.
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?
The tool has 3 optional parameters and an output schema. The description lacks details on subscription types, filtering meaning, and response structure. While the output schema may fill some gaps, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to decide whether this tool is appropriate for a given subtask, especially given the large sibling set.
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 coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not elaborate on the parameters' meaning (limit, orderBy, includeArchived) beyond what the schema types and enums convey. This forces the agent to infer usage, which is inadequate for such coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('subscriptions') scoped to the current user. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools, as no other tool retrieves subscriptions. However, it does not clarify what type of subscriptions (e.g., issue, project) are returned, which could be ambiguous.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any context about prerequisites or expected results. The description solely states the function with no comparative or contextual advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.