Get this organization's plan usage and limits for the current billing period: runs and prompt fetches used, their limits, how many remain, and when the period resets. Call this to pre-check quota before starting runs. Runs are hard-blocked once the run limit is reached (with a small grace band), so a run over the limit will fail with run_limit_reached.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a read-only usage query, and details the hard-blocking behavior upon limit exhaustion. While comprehensive, it does not mention any authentication or deprecation details, but those may be implicit.
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?
Two highly efficient sentences. First sentence states purpose and output data. Second sentence gives usage guidance and behavioral note. Front-loaded with key information, no fluff.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns and its behavioral context. For a simple zero-parameter tool, this is complete and leaves no ambiguity.
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 with 100% schema coverage. The description adds value by explaining what data is returned (runs and prompt fetches used, limits, remaining, reset time), which goes beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and description meets it.
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 'Get this organization's plan usage and limits for the current billing period' with specific resources (runs, prompt fetches) and details (used, limits, remaining, reset). It distinguishes from sibling tools like runs_create or runs_get by focusing on quota/usage rather than run operations.
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?
Explicitly advises 'Call this to pre-check quota before starting runs' and explains the behavior when limit is reached (hard-blocked with grace band, runs fail with run_limit_reached). This provides clear when-to-use and consequence information.
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 targets a distinct resource and action, with clear separation across agreements, datasets, judges, metrics, prompts, runs, tags, and usage. Even similar tools like datasets_create vs datasets_create_from_url and runs_generate vs runs_rerun are explicitly differentiated in their descriptions.
The overwhelming majority of tools follow a consistent plural_resource_action snake_case pattern (e.g., datasets_create, metrics_update, runs_retry_failures). The only slight deviation is promptfoo_import, but it is still descriptive and does not break the overall predictability.
With 54 tools, the server far exceeds the 25+ threshold considered too many, and approaches the 50+ extreme mismatch level. Even for a broad LLM evaluation platform, this count is excessive and likely to overwhelm agents, making tool selection more error-prone.
The toolset provides full CRUD for core resources (datasets, metrics, prompts, runs, tags) plus lifecycle operations like publish, generate, regrade, and retry. It also includes cross-cutting utilities (usage, import, provider credentials). Minor gaps exist, such as no update/delete for agreements and no cross-run response search, but these are non-essential for the primary workflows.
