get-plan-usageReturn the team plan, monitor usage vs limit, and minimum check interval, so you avoid exceeding limits.
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-plan-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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares that this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns plan details, usage relative to a limit, and a minimum check interval, but it does not describe authentication requirements, throttling, or how results are structured. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is an adequate but not rich behavioral disclosure.
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 sentence front-loads the returned information and then adds the operational purpose. There is no redundant restatement of the tool name or title and no filler.
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 without an output schema, the description adequately explains what comes back and why an agent would call it. It could be slightly more complete by noting the response shape or any permission requirements, but nothing critical to correct invocation is 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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema fully covers the empty input and no parameter semantics are needed.
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 ('Return') and names the exact resources returned: team plan, usage versus limit, and minimum check interval. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling monitor CRUD and listing tools without needing to inspect 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?
The trailing clause 'so you avoid exceeding limits' gives clear contextual guidance for when to call it, namely before creating or updating monitors that consume quota. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is easy to infer.
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.