wata_subscription_set_statusChange a subscription's status to pause, resume, or cancel it. Provide the subscription ID and new status to update billing.
Приостанавливает, возобновляет или отменяет подписку.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes | Новый статус, например { status: "Cancelled" } | |
| subscriptionId | Yes | Идентификатор подписки |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly communicates a mutating operation and enumerates three supported status changes, but it does not reveal side effects such as whether cancellation is irreversible, whether resuming is always possible, or how errors are surfaced.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It earns its place by specifying the exact actions rather than restating the title.
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 two-parameter mutation, the description is minimally viable: it states the operation and implied status values. However, it omits a full list of accepted statuses, potential constraints on state transitions, and return behavior, and there is no output schema to compensate.
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%, so the schema already documents the two parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides; the status example appears in the schema, not in the description.
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 a specific verb and resource: it suspends, resumes, or cancels a subscription. This is more specific than the title alone and distinguishes the tool from read-only subscription siblings like wata_subscription_get and wata_subscriptions_list.
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 use this tool versus other subscription tools or what conditions apply. The description does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.