connections_storage_storage_usageHow much storage the member uses against their limit, and how much they added in the last 30 days against the upload budget, with what remains of each. Use it when they ask about space or an upload was refused for size.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| person | No | Linked person to run this call as (first name). Omit to run as the connection's holder. | |
| project | No | Workspace to run this call in (id or name). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / personAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Linked person to run this call as (first name). Omit to run as the connection's holder.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / projectAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Workspace to run this call in (id or name).",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add context, and it does: it discloses the measurement windows (current usage vs. a rolling 30-day budget) rather than just saying 'usage'. It says nothing about how limits are defined or whether the numbers are workspace-wide versus per-person, which is the remaining gap.
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 sentences, zero filler: the first defines the returned measures, the second defines when to call it. The substantive content is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.
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 required parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description carries nearly everything an agent needs, including what the numbers represent. It could go further on whether the 30-day budget resets or rolls and whether 'person' scoping alters the limit reported, but for this complexity the coverage is solid.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both optional parameters ('person' and 'project') fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about how 'person' interacts with the reported figures or how scoping to a project changes the quota picture.
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 a specific resource and metric set: member storage used against limit, storage added in the last 30 days against the upload budget, and the remainder of each. That is unmistakably a quota-reporting tool, distinct from every storage sibling (list/get/save/move/trash), so an agent can select it without opening the schema.
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?
It gives two concrete triggers — the user asks about space, or an upload was refused for size — which is exactly the context an agent needs. It does not name an alternative or an exclusion, but no sibling overlaps this quota-reporting role, so the omission is minor.
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.