Retrieve subscriber analytics for a chosen period, including active, new, churned, net change, trials, and past-due counts to assess subscription health.
Get subscriber statistics for a given period. Returns total active subscribers, new subscribers, churned subscribers, net change, trial count, and past due count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period_days | No | Number of days to analyze (default: 30, min: 1, max: 365) |
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, and it only implies a read via 'Get'. It says nothing about permissions, scoping, caching/freshness, or whether the period is relative to today, none of which the schema covers.
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 purpose, and the metric list is compact and useful. No filler, though the enumeration could be trimmed slightly without loss.
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 lists the returned metrics, and the only parameter is fully documented in the schema. The main gap is the absence of any guidance on when to prefer this over get_churn, which shares the churn metric.
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 100% and the single parameter already documents its default (30), minimum (1), and maximum (365). The description adds only the phrase 'for a given period' and no additional semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb+resource (get subscriber statistics) and enumerates the exact metrics returned (active, new, churned, net change, trial, past due), which lets an agent distinguish it from pure-rate siblings like get_churn or get_mrr. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from the overlapping get_churn tool.
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?
It says 'for a given period' but gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no reference to any alternative such as get_churn or get_mrr, which overlap on churn and subscriber metrics. The agent must infer selection from sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.