Retrieve a unified summary of 5-hour and weekly quota health plus current conversation token usage to monitor headroom and checkpoint work before hitting rate limits.
Get a unified executive summary combining dual-window quota health (5h & weekly) and current conversation token consumption.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| conversation_id | No | Optional conversation ID. Defaults to active conversation. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the tool is a read-style summary and identifies what is combined, but says nothing about permissions, whether the summary is cached/live, or any rate limits. For a low-risk read this is acceptable, yet it leaves meaningful behavioral questions unanswered.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key detail (5h & weekly windows) is packed efficiently. It is dense but not padded; slightly more structure could help but nothing is wasted.
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 one-optional-parameter summary tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it explains what the summary covers and that it combines quota and consumption data. Minor gaps are the relationship to sibling tools and whether results are scoped by conversation by default, which the schema partially covers.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single optional conversation_id is already documented as defaulting to the active conversation. The description adds no further meaning about that parameter, 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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and a clearly defined resource ('unified executive summary'), and spells out what is aggregated: dual-window quota health (5h & weekly) plus current conversation token consumption. It only implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings get_account_quota and get_session_token_usage; an agent can infer it is the combined view but the description never names them.
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 word 'unified' implies this is the aggregate alternative to the two narrower sibling tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no guidance on choosing this over get_account_quota or get_session_token_usage. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.