Current Keeta storage limits: max object size, objects and bytes per user. Free.
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": "get_storage_quotas"
}
}| 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 readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful detail that the call is free (no cost/credit impact) and scopes the response to per-user limits, but says nothing about freshness, caching, or how limits are enforced.
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 telegraphic sentence that front-loads the resource and lists the returned values, with 'Free' tacked on as a cost hint. Nothing is wasteful, though the fragment style is terser than ideal prose.
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 input parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it names the three limits an agent would care about. It stops short of giving units or types (bytes vs objects, whether limits are per-object or aggregate), which keeps it from a 5.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly signals a parameterless call by describing only a returned quota set.
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 the exact resource (Keeta storage limits) and enumerates the three values returned: max object size, objects per user, bytes per user. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb, but the purpose is unambiguous and no sibling tool covers storage quotas.
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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs to know size or count ceilings before an upload. There are no explicit when/when-not conditions, though none of the sibling getters overlap, so the inference risk is low.
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.