Current plan limits and usage counters (monthly inbound count, inbox usage).
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": "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 supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what data is returned (plan limits, monthly inbound count, inbox usage), which implies a read-only operation, but never states that it is non-mutating, whether counters are real-time or cached, or what the reset window/timezone for 'monthly' means.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical examples are useful rather than filler. It is terse to the point of omitting any usage or behavioral framing, but the sentence itself is well-formed.
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 tool with no output schema, the description should give a reasonable picture of the return payload; it names two counters and the plan limits but does not cover the shape of the response or the meaning of the reset period. It is adequate to identify the tool but thin for correct interpretation of results.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The parenthetical field hints do add a little context about what scope of usage is reported.
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 names the resource and its content precisely: plan limits and usage counters, with examples (monthly inbound count, inbox usage). It is clearly distinct from every sibling tool, none of which deal with account usage or quota. It stops short of a verb ('retrieve/return'), but the intent is unambiguous.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or context such as 'call before send_email to check remaining quota'. The only guidance is implied by the field names. With 13 sibling tools and no routing signal, the agent must infer the use case.
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.