organization_usageRetrieve an organization's plan name, subscription state, and current inbox and member counts to check usage against plan limits. Requires an organization ID.
Plan and usage of an organization: plan name, trial / active / cancelled state, inbox and member counts against the plan limits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| organizationId | Yes | The organization id. Use organization_list to find it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds value by summarising the returned content (plan state and counts against limits), but says nothing about freshness, caching, or required permissions.
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?
One compact sentence with no filler, and the object of the call (plan/usage) is front-loaded. It is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a sentence, which is efficient but slightly less directive than a verb-led phrasing.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns — and it does so by listing plan name, subscription state, and counts versus limits. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only the missing when-to-use context holds it back.
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 coverage is 100% and the single organizationId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including a pointer to organization_list for discovery. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 concrete resource (organization plan and usage) and enumerates the specific payload — plan name, trial/active/cancelled state, inbox and member counts against limits — so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like organization_get or organization_list, leaving that differentiation to inference.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus organization_get, organization_list, or organization_update. The only routing hint (use organization_list to find the id) lives in the schema parameter description, not the tool description, so the description itself offers no usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.