The organization's event quota for the current billing period — used, limit, remaining, overage, a run-rate projection — and its plan and raw-event retention.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| org | No | Organization slug; omit for the default organization. See list_organizations. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context about the billing-period scope and the run-rate projection, which is useful, but it does not reveal additional behavioral edge cases. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 one compact sentence, front-loaded with the core concept 'event quota,' and the em-dash list efficiently conveys all returned components. There is no filler or redundant wording, and every listed element adds value.
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 simple read-only lookup with one optional parameter, the description is self-sufficient: it enumerates the returned data fields, which is especially important given there is no output schema. The schema already covers the default organization behavior, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to call the tool 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?
The single optional parameter org is fully documented in the schema, including default behavior and a pointer to list_organizations, giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 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 identifies the resource (organization event quota) and enumerates the returned data points (used, limit, remaining, overage, run-rate projection, plan, retention), making the tool's function clear. It lacks an explicit verb and does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like event_stats, but the noun-phrase description is specific enough for an agent to select it.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as event_stats or list_organizations. The intended use for quota checks is implied, but no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative references are provided.
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.
