carpe_rate_limitsCheck the operator rate limit currently applied to this key—max per window, remaining calls, reset time, separate read budget, and parallel lanes—to plan requests within quotas.
The operator rate limit applied to this key right now (max per window, remaining, reset), separate read budget, and parallel lanes. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by naming the returned rate-limit dimensions, separate read budget, parallel lanes, and that the call is free.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the returned categories. It is efficient, though slightly dense; it could be structured more readably without adding length.
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 explaining what is returned. It does so by listing the key rate-limit dimensions and the separate read budget, though it does not specify exact response shape or units.
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?
This tool has zero input parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and nothing in the description creates confusion about inputs.
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 identifies the resource as the operator rate limit applied to the current key, with specific fields such as max per window, remaining, reset, read budget, and parallel lanes. It is easy to distinguish from siblings like balance or usage history, though it does not explicitly name any alternative tool.
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 does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. 'Right now' and 'Free' provide helpful context, but there is no explicit guidance such as checking limits before making calls or using a different sibling for spend/cost data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.