Check the FAPIHUB plan, request limits, and remaining quota before processing image batches. Use it to avoid exceeding usage when running large jobs.
Show the FAPIHUB plan, its limits, and how many requests are used and remaining.
Free: does not use quota. Check it before processing many images.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context that annotations cannot express: the call itself does not consume quota, which is the key fact an agent needs before making a budget-conscious decision.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the operational cue. Minor sloppiness: "Free: does not use quota" is terse to the point of ambiguity about whether "Free" means a plan tier or zero cost.
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 no explanation, and with no parameters the remaining burden is just purpose and cost semantics, both covered. Slightly more detail on what the plan/limit fields look like would push it higher.
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 the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate and no ambiguity is introduced.
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 specific verb and resource: show the FAPIHUB plan, its limits, and used/remaining request counts. It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling image-processing tools (remove_background, create_mask, etc.), which are all content operations while this is a quota/meta lookup.
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?
Gives an explicit trigger: "Check it before processing many images," and notes that calling it is free of quota cost. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but none are needed since no sibling overlaps this purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.