Check remaining free-tier quota for this MCP session. Without authentication, 10 free requests are available per session. Pass an API key via Authorization: Bearer header for plan-based quota.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that without authentication, only 10 free requests are available per session, and that passing an API key changes behavior to plan-based quota. This is beyond what annotations (none) provide.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then key usage details. Every sentence is informative and no redundant text.
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 parameterless tool, the description covers the essential context: what it does and authentication impact. Lacks output format but sufficient for an agent to use correctly.
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?
There are no parameters, so the description cannot add meaning beyond the schema. However, it explains the return concept (quota info) without detailing format. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
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 explicitly states 'Check remaining free-tier quota for this MCP session', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'calculate_toll' by focusing on quota.
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?
Provides clear context on when to use: to check quota. Also explains authentication requirements and the difference between free and plan-based quota, guiding the agent on prerequisites.
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.
The two tools are completely distinct: calculate_toll performs toll calculations, while get_quota checks API quota usage. There is no overlap or possibility of confusion.
Both tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (calculate_toll, get_quota), providing a predictable and consistent naming convention.
With only 2 tools, the server is on the thin side, but the narrow domain of toll calculation justifies this. The primary tool is comprehensive, and get_quota is a useful utility. Slightly over-scoped would be adding unnecessary tools.
The calculate_toll tool covers the full lifecycle of toll calculation with multiple detail levels (basic, detailed, full) and supports many countries. There are no obvious missing operations within the stated domain, and get_quota covers the API quota aspect.
