Assigns a price point to an App Store subscription, optionally scheduling it with a start date.
Set a price point for a subscription
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| startDate | No | Start date for the price (YYYY-MM-DD), null for immediate | |
| pricePointId | Yes | The subscription price point ID | |
| 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 destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—it does not explain what existing pricing may be replaced, whether changes affect current subscribers, or any irreversible impact.
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 wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity contributes to gaps in usage and behavioral context that are scored elsewhere.
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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits critical context such as effects on existing subscribers, reversibility, and how startDate interacts with immediate changes, leaving the agent under-informed for a consequential write 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters clearly, including startDate semantics. The description adds no additional meaning, which meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 (Set) and resource (price point for a subscription), which is clear enough to distinguish it from most sibling tools. It does not explicitly differentiate from adjacent tools like set_iap_price or set_subscription_localization.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_iap_price, nor any mention of prerequisites like needing an existing subscription or price point. The agent gets no context on the expected workflow or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.