polestar-mcp

Server status

polestar_status

Read-only

Check API budget usage and limits to identify if daily or per-minute quotas are exceeded. Provides reset time, cache hit rate, token expiry, and mode to diagnose high consumption.

Instructions

Server self-report: daily API budget (used/limit/reset), per-minute ceiling, cache hit rate, token expiry, and mode. Call this if you suspect you are burning through the daily API budget.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	False when the call produced no data.
`vin`	No	Vehicle the result is about, masked when POLESTAR_REDACT_VIN is on.
`code`	No	Machine-readable error code when ok is false.
`data`	No	Structured payload; shape documented per tool.
`hint`	No	Actionable guidance when ok is false.
`tool`	No	Tool that produced this result.
`message`	Yes	Result text, identical to the content block.
`requestId`	No	Upstream request id, the handle support needs.
`ageSeconds`	No	Staleness of the underlying telemetry.
`httpStatus`	No	Upstream HTTP status when ok is false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Sep 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is a self-report that exposes budget consumption, limits, rate ceilings, cache performance, and token expiry. There is no contradiction and no hidden side effects implied.

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?

The description is two tight sentences with the metric list front-loaded and the usage trigger in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool with an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool reports and when to invoke it. Nothing needed for correct selection or invocation is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter burden. Baseline 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a distinct purpose: a server self-report covering API budget, rate ceiling, cache hit rate, token expiry, and mode. This clearly separates it from the sibling vehicle-data getters, all of which report car state rather than server/API status.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Call this if you suspect you are burning through the daily API budget.' It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but given the unique server-level scope, no sibling is a genuine alternative.

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