Report the account's plan and execution usage for the current calendar month: used, included_executions, remaining, and whether overage is allowed. Check this before large batches to avoid hitting a hard quota.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the time window (current calendar month), the specific output fields (used, included_executions, remaining), and the concept of a hard quota. This gives a solid understanding of behavior and scope.
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 concise, information-dense sentences. The first sentence specifies exactly what is reported, and the second provides a practical use case. No filler or 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?
Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description fully explains what the tool returns and when to use it. For a zero-parameter reporting tool, this is complete and self-sufficient.
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 there is no parameter schema to supplement. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output semantics rather than param details.
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 reports account plan and execution usage for the current month, naming specific fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_executions, which list execution records, and execute/get_execution.
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 guidance to check usage before large batches to avoid hitting a hard quota. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: execute creates executions, get_execution reads one, list_executions lists them, replay_execution re-runs them, get_usage reports account usage, and list_connections manages credentials. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow the same verb_noun snake_case pattern: execute, get_execution, get_usage, list_connections, list_executions, replay_execution. The only tool without a noun is 'execute', but it is the primary verb and fits the imperative style consistently.
Six tools is well-scoped for an HTTP execution management server. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the lifecycle (create, read, list, replay, usage, credentials) without redundancy or bloat.
The core execution workflow is well covered: submit, fetch, list, replay, plus account usage and credential listing. A minor gap is the absence of explicit tools for approval actions (given the PENDING_APPROVAL status) or connection management beyond listing, but these are arguably external concerns.