Owner share-enabled workspace quota (used/max/plan). User session only; not available to workspace API keys.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "account.share_quota"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral constraint — it only works under a user session and is unavailable to workspace API keys, so the agent knows it will fail in key-authenticated contexts. It stops short of confirming read-only semantics, error behavior, or whether quota is account-wide or per-plan.
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 compact sentences with the core resource stated first and the access constraint second; nothing is wasted. The phrase 'Owner share-enabled workspace quota' is slightly compressed and takes a moment to parse, which keeps it from a 5.
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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (used/max/plan) and the authentication precondition. The remaining gap is that the granularity of the quota (per-plan, per-owner, aggregated) is only hinted at by '(used/max/plan)'.
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 and the baseline of 4 applies. The parenthetical instead documents the shape of the response, which is a bonus rather than a parameter concern.
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 names a specific resource — the owner's share-enabled workspace quota — and enumerates what it returns (used/max/plan). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the workspace.share_* siblings, but the account-level quota concept is clear enough to identify the tool's job.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives (e.g., account.list_workspaces for inventory vs this for quota headroom). The only conditional is an access restriction ('user session only'), which is useful but is not task-selection guidance.
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.