Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
line-bot-ops-mcp

line-bot-ops-mcp

by MankhongGarden
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

line_message_quota

Read-only

Check your LINE bot's monthly push and broadcast message quota and track how much has been used this month.

Instructions

Monthly push/broadcast message quota and how much of it has been used this month.

Tool call template

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": "line_message_quota"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the value is monthly and scoped to push/broadcast usage, but says nothing about reset timing, rate limits, or whether hitting the quota affects other calls. Adequate given the annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and its scope stated immediately and zero filler. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does state the two things returned (quota and amount used this month). It does not describe the shape of the response or units, but for a zero-param read tool this is nearly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately spends no words on parameter syntax.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource (monthly push/broadcast message quota) and scope (how much used this month), which is clearly distinct from siblings like line_push_text or line_broadcast. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so it relies on the reader to infer the difference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of checking quota before pushing/broadcasting, and no named alternatives. The reader must infer the utility from context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools