get_usageHow many requests the calling account has used this month, the plan limit, the per-minute limit and when the counter resets — and, on the free 1-day trial, when the trial ends (trial_ends_at).
| 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by listing exact returned values and the calling-account scope, but it does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as response format or rate-limit details.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that packs all key return fields without filler. The trial-specific note is appended cleanly without disturbing the main list.
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 zero-parameter, read-only usage endpoint with no output schema, the description is complete: it names every important value an agent would need to decide whether to call it and what to expect. Nothing critical appears 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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description adds useful context by implying the account identity is derived from the caller rather than a parameter.
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 enumerates the specific usage metrics returned: requests used, plan limit, per-minute limit, reset time, and trial end. It is distinct enough from sibling tools by focusing on account-wide API usage, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with get_plans or other resource getters.
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?
No guidance is given about when to call this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The intended use is implied by the content, but the description does not state it explicitly.
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.