Get contact reveal quota
get_contact_reveal_quotaHow many contact reveals the user has left this month, their monthly cap, and the upgrade link if they are out.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
get_contact_reveal_quotaHow many contact reveals the user has left this month, their monthly cap, and the upgrade link if they are out.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the conditional upgrade link when the quota is exhausted and the monthly reset window, which is behavioral context the annotations do not carry.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that lists the three returned values with no filler or repetition.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully describes the return payload (remaining count, cap, conditional upgrade link), which is what an agent needs. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether values are counts or formatted strings.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies.
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 states a concrete resource and the exact payload: remaining reveals, the monthly cap, and an upgrade link. That clearly separates it from the mutation sibling reveal_contacts, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied — the mention of running out of reveals suggests this is a pre-check before calling reveal_contacts, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement.
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.