Check your remaining BounceProtect credit balance to ensure you have enough for email validation.
Check your remaining BounceProtect credit balance.
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": "check_credits"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Check' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose response format, rate limits, or whether the check consumes credits. However, for a simple balance lookup, these details are not critical.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the exact purpose without any unnecessary words or redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.
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?
The tool has no output schema or annotations, so the description must convey the essence. It tells the user what to check but does not explicitly state the return value type or format. Yet, for a trivial zero-parameter tool, this level of detail is sufficient.
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 has zero parameters, so the description correctly omits any parameter details. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no additional explanation is needed.
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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('remaining BounceProtect credit balance'), distinguishing it from sibling email validation and status tools. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 implies usage when the user needs to know their remaining credits, but it provides no explicit context, alternatives, or exclusions. This is an implied rather than explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.