Skip to main content
Glama

get_sweep_limits

Read-onlyIdempotent

The sweep limits this person's plan actually enforces: the most backtests one sweep may run, the most history it may read, and how many sweeps may be in flight at once. Read these rather than guessing, and say the size in plan terms when a search is over one. Zero means no limit is enforced for this caller and -1 means unlimited; neither is a number to report as a cap.

Tool call template

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_sweep_limits"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, closed-world safety profile, yet the description adds real value: the per-caller scoping, the sentinel semantics (0 = no limit enforced, -1 = unlimited), and the explicit warning not to report them as caps. That is behavior an annotation cannot express.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the returned values, the second governs usage, the third handles the tricky sentinel cases. Front-loaded with the resource definition, though the opening sentence is long and clause-heavy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by naming all three limits plus the sentinel encoding. It doesn't say whether limits are per-plan-tier or include units/ranges for the history field, leaving a small gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; nothing in the description is needed for parameter meaning and nothing misleading is added.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource (returns the sweep limits the caller's plan enforces) and enumerates the three specific values returned. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like size_sweep or create_sweep, though it never names them explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Read these rather than guessing, and say the size in plan terms when a search is over one" gives clear direction on when to call it and how to use the result. It stops short of naming the sibling tools (size_sweep/create_sweep) that would consume these limits.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.