Check 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. Pass it on every call in this session. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that non-members are subject to a daily quota while registered pairs are unlimited, but it does not explain what the response contains (remaining count, reset time), nor any auth/token behavior beyond what the schema already states.
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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the core purpose leads and the exclusivity note follows.
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 quota check with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the purpose but omits what is returned and typical usage timing necessary to call it confidently.
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?
Only one parameter exists and its schema description already fully documents agent_token (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter.
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 ('Check your non-member day quota') and adds a clarifying fact ('Registered pairs are unlimited'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it contrasts with.
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 mention of 'non-member day quota' implies the tool is for non-members verifying their allowance before acting, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., vs. pairgora_perform).
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.