Returns the application token account: accountName, accountPlan (e.g. free, developer, trial_developer, enterprise), allowedCredits and remainingCredits (monthly plus purchased pool). Requires Authorization: Bearer on the MCP HTTP request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accountName | Yes | ||
| accountPlan | Yes | ||
| allowedCredits | Yes | ||
| remainingCredits | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the auth requirement and the exact composition of returned data (monthly plus purchased pool). It doesn't discuss error behavior or read-only status, but for a simple quota tool this is largely sufficient.
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 sentence that front-loads the primary purpose, then details the return fields and auth requirement without unnecessary filler.
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 no-parameter, read-only quota tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential context: return field details and authentication. Nothing important seems 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 baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exist; schema coverage is effectively complete.
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 returns the application token account with specific fields (accountName, accountPlan, allowedCredits, remainingCredits). It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('application token account'), distinguishing it from sibling session tools.
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 implies usage when quota/credit details are needed and clearly states the authentication requirement (Authorization: Bearer <application JWT>). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, 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 serves a clearly distinct purpose: get_quota handles account information, get_session retrieves a single session by ID, and list_sessions provides filtered search. No overlap in functionality or ambiguity in selection.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_quota, get_session, list_sessions), making the API predictable and easy to navigate.
With just 3 tools, the set is minimal but coherent for a read-only RTC stats server. The count feels slightly thin but each tool covers a distinct need without redundancy.
The core workflows (check quota, list sessions, fetch session details) are covered. A notable gap is the lack of a tool to access the observation catalog mentioned in get_session, which would be useful for interpreting observation types.
