Retrieve a specific rate limiting rule's full configuration, including threshold, period, action, and match criteria, by providing zone and rule IDs.
Get details of a specific rate limiting rule by ID. Returns the full configuration including threshold, period, action, and match criteria.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zone_id | Yes | required,The ID of the zone | |
| rate_limit_id | Yes | required,The ID of the rate limit rule |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the read operation and the returned fields, but does not mention behavior for missing IDs, authorization requirements, or error cases. The surface behavior is clear, but deeper semantics are not covered.
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 focused sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and immediately adds valuable return-content detail, earning every word.
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?
For a simple two-parameter retrieval tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, the identifier, and the return shape. The lack of an output schema is compensated by listing response fields. Minor gaps around not-found behavior and credentials prevent a 5.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-level value beyond confirming the operation is by ID, which matches the baseline of 3.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('rate limiting rule by ID'), and explicitly indicates it returns the full configuration. This distinguishes it from sibling list_rate_limits and other get_* tools because it is scoped to a specific rate limiting rule.
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?
Usage is implied: call this when you have a specific rate_limit_id and need the rule's full configuration. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the alternative sibling list_rate_limits for discovering IDs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.