get_subscriptionFetch a single subscription (recurring donation) by uuid. Raisely API: GET /subscriptions/{uuid}. Returns { data:{...} }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | The subscription uuid. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context: the exact HTTP method and path (GET /subscriptions/{uuid}) and the response wrapper shape ({ data:{...} }). This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it, though it omits details like error cases or rate limits.
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 two sentences and directly front-loads the core action ('Fetch a single subscription by uuid') followed by the API reference and return shape. Every word contributes to understanding; there is no filler.
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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient: it states the endpoint and response envelope. It does not enumerate all response fields, but the output schema is absent and this is a fetch operation, so the description covers the essential context.
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 single required parameter 'uuid' is fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that lookup is by uuid but adds no new semantic detail beyond that. This meets the baseline for well-covered schemas.
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 ('Fetch') and resource ('single subscription (recurring donation) by uuid'), clearly distinguishing it from list_subscriptions and other sibling tools. It also provides the exact API endpoint, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: when you need a single subscription identified by uuid. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the contrast with list_subscriptions is implicitly clear. It provides enough context for an agent to select it over list operations.
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.
Each tool is clearly scoped to a specific resource and action. The get_/list_/create_/update_ prefixes distinguish reads from mutations, and the convenience listers are explicitly labeled, so there is no real overlap or confusion.
Tool names largely follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, list_, update_). The only outlier is raisely_request, which is a generic escape hatch but breaks the pattern slightly.
With 23 tools, the server is on the heavy side. While each tool maps to a distinct API endpoint, several convenience wrappers (list_campaign_donations, list_user_donations) add redundancy without significantly expanding functionality.
The tool surface is heavily read-oriented. Many core resources like campaigns, subscriptions, posts, and orders lack create/update/delete operations, and the read-only raisely_request cannot fill these gaps, leaving agents unable to perform common management tasks.