Get detailed usage for the account. format=quick returns a lightweight summary, format=dashboard the full dashboard data; analytics=true adds a per-day breakdown over days (default 30). For plan limits at a glance, use upgrade.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Look-back window in days (default 30) | |
| format | No | Response format — omit for the default summary | |
| analytics | No | Include the detailed analytics breakdown (default false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description only needs to add operational context — it does: the two response modes, the analytics augmentation, and the 30-day default window. It doesn't describe volume/size of dashboard output or any rate/latency characteristics.
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, and the primary capability is front-loaded with alternatives in the second half. Every clause carries either scope, a mode, or a routing hint.
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 read-only, no-write-risk tool with a fully documented 3-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers modes, defaults, and the alternative tool. What remains unspecified is the shape of the returned data (which metrics appear in 'quick' vs 'dashboard'), but the tool takes no required params and cannot mutate state, so this is a minor gap.
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%, so baseline is 3, but the description earns a bump by explaining the interaction between parameters: analytics=true expands the breakdown *over the `days` window*, which the schema does not state. The per-parameter defaults are restated rather than added, but the linkage adds real meaning.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed usage for the account') and immediately explains the two format modes. It is distinguishable from most siblings, though the sibling set contains no other usage tool, so the name alone already disambiguates; 'usage' itself (quotas? analytics? billing?) is only clarified by the format values.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent away from this tool for a related need ('For plan limits at a glance, use upgrade'), and gives the conditions for choosing format=quick vs format=dashboard vs analytics=true. No explicit statement of when this tool is *not* useful beyond that single exclusion.
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.