Retrieves available price points for an App Store subscription, with optional territory filtering, so you can review and compare pricing options.
List available price points for a subscription, optionally filtered by territory
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| territory | No | Filter by territory code (e.g. USA, GBR, JPN) | |
| subscriptionId | Yes | The subscription ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the listing scope, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage but not value-adding.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates scope and the optional filter efficiently.
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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the definition is essentially complete. No output schema exists, but the description needn't explain return values for such a straightforward listing operation.
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 100% and both parameters carry descriptions in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces that territory filtering is optional, adding marginal value over the schema but nothing new.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('price points for a subscription'), with the optional territory filter noted. It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like set_subscription_price or list_subscription_offers.
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 phrase 'optionally filtered by territory' implies the common usage pattern, but there's no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives for retrieving price data versus setting them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.