get_usageRead usage for the Frontier bearer API key on this MCP HTTP request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context by specifying the usage is for 'the Frontier bearer API key on this MCP HTTP request', which clarifies what is being read beyond the annotations.
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 sentence that conveys all essential information without any waste. Every word adds meaning.
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 tool with a rich set of annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It states what is read (usage of the key) and the scoping (this request), which is sufficient given the simplicity of the tool.
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 the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but with no parameters and 100% schema coverage, there is nothing missing or unclear.
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 ('Read') and resource ('usage for the Frontier bearer API key on this MCP HTTP request'), making it clear what the tool returns. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_capabilities and list_models, which focus on other aspects of the API.
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 the tool is for checking usage of the Frontier bearer key, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. Sibling tools are not referenced, so guidance is limited to the inferred purpose.
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 distinct purpose: capabilities, usage, and model listing. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, using either 'get_' or 'list_' for retrieval operations. The pattern is predictable and readable.
With only 3 tools, the server is tightly scoped to its purpose of providing API information and usage. Each tool is necessary and the count is appropriate for a read-only info service.
The set covers the essential informational needs for the Frontier API: capabilities, usage, and available models. There are no obvious gaps given the stated server purpose.