List memberships from your Buy Me a Coffee account. Optionally include supporter emails for detailed records.
Read memberships as supplied by the API, with emails redacted by default. Full emails belong to the account owner and should be handled accordingly when include_emails is true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_pages | No | ||
| include_emails | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that emails are redacted by default and that enabling include_emails exposes owner-identifying data. This is useful for safe and correct invocation.
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 two efficient sentences that front-load the core action and redaction detail before the more nuanced privacy warning. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.
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 simple read-only list operation with two optional parameters and no required arguments, the description is largely complete. It covers the main invocation concern, email privacy, but it does not describe the expected return shape or exactly how max_pages affects the result, which would be helpful without an output schema.
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 carry parameter meaning. It explains the critical behavior of include_emails, but max_pages is left only with name and schema constraints. The description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 tool reads memberships and that emails are redacted by default, which gives a specific verb and resource. It partially distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on memberships and email handling, though it does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling tools.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when listing membership/subscription data is needed. It also provides important conditional usage guidance around include_emails, warning that full emails belong to the account owner and should be handled accordingly. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.