get_limitsShow the ship.page plan matrix (anonymous free tier vs Pro $4/mo vs Team $19/mo) and, when an sp_ API key is present, the caller's current account/plan status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plans | Yes | Plan matrix: anonymous, pro, team | |
| account | No | Present when an sp_ API key was supplied |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it discloses the anonymous vs authenticated behavior and the public plan matrix. The word 'Show' implies a non-mutating operation, and while readOnlyHint is false, this is not an affirmative contradiction since false is not a positive claim of mutation.
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?
The description is a single, information-dense sentence with principal content front-loaded and the conditional case stated second. No unnecessary words or repetition of the title or schema.
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 tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is complete: it specifies exactly what is shown in both the anonymous and API-key-present cases. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it is missing.
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?
There are no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details while still clarifying the API key as an environmental condition.
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 specific action ('Show') and a specific resource (the ship.page plan matrix), and adds the conditional account/plan status. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the overlapping 'get_account' sibling for account status.
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 description gives clear context for when the tool provides just the public matrix versus when it also shows the caller's status (when an sp_ API key is present). It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a zero-parameter informational tool this is adequate.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or lifecycle action: deploy_html vs deploy_files separate single-file from multi-file deploys, append_files adds to an existing drop, and claim/restore/delete/list cover different drop states. There is no meaningful overlap between tool purposes.
All nine tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, e.g. deploy_html, deploy_files, list_drops, restore_drop. The verbs clearly indicate the action and the nouns indicate the target resource.
Nine tools is well-scoped for a deployment service covering deploy, file management, lifecycle, and account/limit information. Each tool earns its place without unnecessary redundancy or overwhelming surface area.
The core drop lifecycle is covered: deploy, append files, claim, list, delete, and restore, plus account and limits context. Minor gaps exist around per-file updates/overwrites and named-drop redeployment not being exposed as an explicit tool, but agents can accomplish the main workflows.