Your usage: capsule count, storage metering, Fleet wakes used, trial state
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": "hib_get_usage"
}
}| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only, per-account lookup via 'Your usage' and lists what is included, but it does not explicitly state safety, permissions, freshness, or rate-limit behavior.
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 line with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter read tool, though the colon-separated list is terse enough to feel slightly compressed.
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 and no annotations, the description usefully substitutes for an output summary by naming the four usage metrics returned. It omits details like billing period or units, but for a zero-parameter usage endpoint it is largely complete.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description's enumeration of returned metrics is helpful but does not interact with input schema semantics.
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 states a specific resource—account usage—and enumerates the four metrics returned (capsule count, storage metering, Fleet wakes used, trial state). It is distinct from all sibling tools, which deal with capsules and wakes, though the phrasing is a noun fragment rather than an explicit verb.
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 gives no guidance on when to call this tool, what alternatives exist, or any prerequisites. An agent can infer it is a usage-checking tool, but nothing states the conditions under which it should be selected.
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.