Check current API usage, daily limit, plan name, and upgrade options.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan | Yes | ||
| used | Yes | ||
| limit | Yes | ||
| reset_at | No | ||
| upgrade_url | No | ||
| schema_version | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / reset_atAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / schema_versionAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / upgrade_url / typePrevious value: -"string"New value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "limit": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "string"
+ ]
+ },
+ "plan": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "upgrade_url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "used": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "string"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "used",
+ "limit",
+ "plan"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Check' is consistent. The description goes beyond the schema by specifying the returned information: API usage, daily limit, plan name, and upgrade options. It does not mention whether the check itself affects quota or requires authentication, but the read-only nature and output schema mitigate this.
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: 'Check current API usage, daily limit, plan name, and upgrade options.' Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or 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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description fully covers the purpose and expected results. It clearly enumerates the returned quota details, making the tool self-explanatory within its 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?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per guidelines, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description correctly adds no parameter information because there is nothing to add.
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 the specific verb 'Check' and identifies exact resources: API usage, daily limit, plan name, and upgrade options. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the data-analysis and connection-management siblings.
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 implies the tool is for monitoring current quota status. Although it does not explicitly mention alternatives, no sibling tool appears to cover quota, so the usage context is clear. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but that is not critical for a zero-parameter status tool.
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.