getIcpUsageLists up to 100 recent records of where an ICP was applied, newest first.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"params": "<params>"
},
"name": "getIcpUsage"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the 100-record cap and newest-first ordering, but it does not say whether that cap is a hard truncation or whether any pagination/cursor path exists to retrieve more.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then scope and ordering. No filler, no restatement of the title.
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?
With no output schema, the description must convey return shape, and it does so only coarsely — "records of where an ICP was applied" leaves unclear what fields a record has (campaign, audience, timestamp) and whether an empty result is possible. Adequate for a simple read tool, but thin given the nested parameter and cap semantics.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the single parameter is a nested object (params.icpId, UUID) with no meaning given in the description. The tool name weakly implies icpId identifies the ICP whose applications are listed, but nothing states required format, behavior on unknown IDs, or why the nesting exists.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Lists ... records of where an ICP was applied") and adds scope ("recent", "up to 100", "newest first"). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like getIcp (ICP definition) and previewIcpApplication (hypothetical application), though it does not name those siblings explicitly.
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 when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as getIcp, previewIcpApplication, or listIcps. An agent must infer context from the tool name alone; the description only states the output, not the selection criteria.
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.