Retrieve API usage records for your AceDataCloud account, with pagination via limit and offset. Use it to review consumption and monitor API activity.
Get apis usage. Backend account permissions and ownership checks apply. Required permissions: public
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that backend account permission and ownership checks apply and that the required permission is 'public', which is genuinely useful auth context. However, it says nothing about read-only nature, pagination behavior, or what the usage data represents.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, no filler. The structure is efficient, though the sentence fragments are somewhat clipped.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and an unexplained required id, the definition is too thin for an agent to invoke this tool 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The required 'id' parameter is not explained (id of what?), and 'limit'/'offset' are only given placeholder descriptions in the schema. The description does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 verb+resource ('Get apis usage'), but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as acedatacloud_get_usage_guide or acedatacloud_get_apis_id. An agent cannot tell from the description what 'apis usage' means concretely or how it differs from adjacent tools.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the alternative acedatacloud_get_usage_guide which sounds nearly identical. The only context given is a permission note, which is not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.