Return the current user's plan, limits, and usage so the client can render upgrade nudges proactively.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan | No | Plan tier and limits. | |
| Yes | |||
| usage | No | Current usage against the plan limits. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the returned data (plan, limits, usage) and intended client-side use, without contradictions.
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?
Single sentence, no redundancy, all words serve a purpose. front-loads the action and outcome.
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 parameters and full annotations plus output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's value and typical use case.
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?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4; description does not need to add param info.
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 it returns the current user's plan, limits, and usage, with a specific purpose (render upgrade nudges). It distinctly differs from sibling tools which deal with monitors and certificates.
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 for account info display, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives. However, context is clear enough given the tool's simplicity and distinct role among siblings.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct but some overlap exists between add_monitor/add_monitors (batch vs single) and export_monitors/list_monitors (export vs list). Descriptions help disambiguate, but an agent might initially confuse export_monitors with list_monitors.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., add_monitor, create_certificate, list_monitors). No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
17 tools is reasonable for a TLS monitoring and certificate management server. Each tool serves a distinct function without significant bloat, though the deprecated register_beacon_order could be removed.
Covers core CRUD for monitors, certificate lifecycle (create, check propagation, finalize, renew, status, scan), account info, and team invites. Minor gaps: no batch remove_monitors, no monitor update, and no detailed certificate inspection beyond status.
