getOrgConcurrencyRetrieve the current concurrency usage and limits for the organization on web automation (Selenium/Cypress).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "getOrgConcurrency"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the context that the concurrency is for web automation, which is useful. It does not, however, disclose behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, such as whether this is a real-time lookup or if the response includes historical data.
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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope with 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?
Given the simplicity (no params, no output schema) and the annotations covering safety, the description is adequate. However, it lacks a crucial piece: an explicit statement that this tool is for web automation (Selenium/Cypress) and not mobile, which would help the agent choose between it and getMobileConcurrency.
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 baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no parameters are needed, and it clarifies the scope (organization-level, web automation) without introducing unnecessary parameter 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?
States a specific verb 'retrieve' and resource 'current concurrency usage and limits for the organization on web automation (Selenium/Cypress)', clearly scoping it to web automation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'getMobileConcurrency', which retrieves mobile concurrency limits.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the tool name and description imply it should be used to get org concurrency, the presence of 'getMobileConcurrency' as a sibling creates ambiguity that is not resolved – the description does not state that this tool is for web (Selenium/Cypress) as opposed to mobile.
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.