postscript_get_subscriberGet a single SMS subscriber by Postscript subscriber ID. Returns phone number, email, subscription status, Shopify customer linkage, and custom properties.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _apiKey | Yes | Postscript Private API token (Bearer). | |
| subscriber_id | Yes | Postscript subscriber ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-postscript-api-key",
+ "subscriber_id": "sub_abc123def456"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by listing the specific fields returned (phone, email, status, etc.), which is not in the annotations. No contradictions found.
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, efficient sentence that immediately states the purpose and what is returned. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, good annotations), the description covers the core functionality and return values. Could optionally mention error behavior for invalid IDs, but not essential for a straightforward read 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%, so the schema already fully describes both parameters (_apiKey and subscriber_id). The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond that. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Get') and resource ('single SMS subscriber by Postscript subscriber ID'), and explicitly lists the returned fields (phone number, email, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like postscript_list_subscribers (which lists multiple) and postscript_get_keyword (which gets a keyword).
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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., postscript_list_subscribers), nor does it specify when not to use it or any prerequisites. The context signals show siblings but no explicit usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes with detailed descriptions that differentiate them. However, there is some overlap among data query tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx, deep_research, entity_profile) and among Polymarket analysis tools, which could cause confusion for an agent.
Tool names lack a consistent pattern, mixing snake_case (ai_visibility_check, bet_research) with descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt) and some with verbs (list_subscriptions, remember). This inconsistency makes it harder to predict tool names.
With 34 tools, the server covers a broad scope including data querying, Polymarket analysis, SMS management, and utilities. While many tools are justified, the number feels slightly high and some tools (e.g., multiple Polymarket tools) might be consolidated.
The server provides comprehensive coverage for data analysis, entity resolution, fact-checking, and monitoring. However, SMS management lacks create/update operations for keywords and subscribers, and there is no tool for sending SMS messages, indicating minor gaps.