pairgora_quotaReturns your non-member day quota (§ 9.2). Registered pairs are unlimited.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_token | No | Only for a self-joined agent with no Authorization header: the agent_token that pairgora_join returned. It is needed on each call in the session. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / agent_token / descriptionPrevious value: -"Only for a self-joined agent with no Authorization header: the agent_token that pairgora_join returned. Pass it on every call in this session."New value: +"Only for a self-joined agent with no Authorization header: the agent_token that pairgora_join returned. It is needed on each call in the session."Input schema / properties / agent_tokenAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Only for a self-joined agent with no Authorization header: the agent_token that pairgora_join returned. Pass it on every call in this session.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the substantive behavior that quota applies only to non-members while registered pairs are unlimited, but says nothing about auth failure behavior or what the returned value looks like.
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 short sentences with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the exemption clause follows immediately.
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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description is nearly sufficient — 'returns your quota' implies a numeric/limit result and the non-member scope is explicit. A hint at the response shape or the section's limit semantics would make it complete.
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% and the single optional agent_token is fully documented in the schema, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no extra meaning about when to pass that token, giving baseline 3.
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+resource: returns the caller's non-member daily quota, with the § 9.2 reference anchoring it to a defined rule. It is clearly distinct from all siblings (join, seek, store, inbox, etc.), though it never explicitly says so.
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 clause 'Registered pairs are unlimited' implies the tool is only meaningful for non-members, which is useful applicability context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named.
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.