get_usageYour Iminify plan, what it allows, and how much of today's allowance is used, with when it resets. The website, the API and this server spend the same counts. A limit of null means no daily cap. Check this before a large batch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan | No | ||
| usage | No | ||
| limits | No | ||
| plan_ends_at | No | When a cancelled paid plan ends. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "limits": {
+ "properties": {
+ "compressions_per_minute": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "images_per_day": {
+ "description": "Null means no daily cap.",
+ "type": [
+ "integer",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "images_per_scan": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "max_batch": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "max_file_size": {
+ "description": "Bytes.",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "max_megapixels": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "requests_per_minute": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "scans_per_day": {
+ "description": "Null means no daily cap.",
+ "type": [
+ "integer",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "scans_per_minute": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "images_per_day",
+ "scans_per_day",
+ "images_per_scan",
+ "max_file_size",
+ "max_megapixels",
+ "compressions_per_minute",
+ "scans_per_minute",
+ "requests_per_minute",
+ "max_batch"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "plan": {
+ "enum": [
+ "guest",
+ "free",
+ "pro"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "plan_ends_at": {
+ "description": "When a cancelled paid plan ends.",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "usage": {
+ "properties": {
+ "images": {
+ "properties": {
+ "remaining": {
+ "description": "Null on a plan without a daily cap.",
+ "type": [
+ "integer",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "resets_at": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "used": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "used",
+ "remaining",
+ "resets_at"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "scans": {
+ "properties": {
+ "remaining": {
+ "description": "Null on a plan without a daily cap.",
+ "type": [
+ "integer",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "resets_at": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "used": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "used",
+ "remaining",
+ "resets_at"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "images",
+ "scans"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the shared counting across platforms, the meaning of null limit, and the reset timing. This goes beyond what annotations provide.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: what it returns, the shared counting behavior, the null-limit semantics, and when to use it. No wasted words.
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 a rich output schema, the description is complete. It explains the key behavioral nuances (shared counts, null limit, reset) and provides usage guidance. The output schema presumably documents the return structure, so nothing critical is missing.
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 the schema is trivially complete. The description adds meaning by explaining what the returned data represents (plan, allowance, usage, reset time), which is useful even though there are no parameters to document.
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 purpose: retrieving Iminify plan details, current usage, and reset timing. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('usage'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on plan/allowance rather than image 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?
The description explicitly advises checking this tool before large batches, providing a clear use case. It also clarifies that the website, API, and server share the same counts, which helps the agent understand when this tool is relevant versus alternatives.
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.