Check current usage, remaining limits, plan, and quota breakdown for the caller. FREE TO CALL — never counts against your quota, never blocked by it. Use this proactively when the user asks about usage or seems near limits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mcp | Yes | ||
| upstream | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals a critical behavioral trait: the call never counts against quota and is never blocked by it. This is valuable context not present in annotations and directly influences the agent's willingness to call the tool.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then a high-value clarifying detail about quota impact. Every word earns its place with no 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?
For a simple, parameterless tool, the description fully covers what it returns (usage, limits, plan, breakdown) and when to call it. The output schema exists to detail return structure, so the description is complete.
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, so no parameter descriptions are needed. The schema already fully covers this aspect (100% coverage with no properties), meeting the baseline for no-parameter tools.
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 tool's function: 'Check current usage, remaining limits, plan, and quota breakdown for the caller.' It uses a specific verb ('Check') and precise resource identifiers, distinguishing it from sibling tools like issue_api_key or geocoding services.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this proactively when the user asks about usage or seems near limits.' Also adds that it is 'FREE TO CALL — never counts against your quota, never blocked by it,' reinforcing why it should be used without hesitation.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Overlapping tools (geocode vs geocode_structured, explore vs search_places, map_match vs trace_attributes) are explicitly differentiated in their descriptions, with cross-references guiding correct selection. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Most tools follow a predictable verb_noun pattern (geocode, reverse_geocode, batch_geocode, search_places, resolve_intersection), but there are minor deviations: some tools use noun-only names (directions, traffic, weather) and a couple use noun_verb order (place_get, geofence_contains). This creates slight inconsistency but remains readable.
At 19 tools, the set is slightly heavy but each tool earns its place by covering a distinct geospatial function. The breadth spans geocoding, routing, places, telematics, geofencing, traffic, weather, and account management, making the count reasonable for a comprehensive geo API.
The tool surface is remarkably complete for a geospatial server: forward, reverse, batch, structured, and intersection geocoding; routing, matrix, and isochrones; place search, exploration, and ID lookup; map matching, trace attributes, and point snapping; plus geofencing, traffic, weather, and quota management. No critical gaps or dead ends apparent.