get_usageCheck live and test API key usage, remaining allowance, reset time, batch limits, and monitor capacity to manage quotas and avoid hitting limits.
Live and test usage, remaining allowance, reset time, batch limits and monitor capacity for the configured key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the scope of what is reported (live vs test, reset time, capacity), but says nothing about refresh cadence, whether the values are cached, or auth requirements for the configured key.
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; the enumerated data points are the payload, not padding. Slightly list-like, 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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of conveying return content, and it does commonly enumerate the reported fields. Complete enough to call correctly; only richer behavioral detail (freshness, units) is missing.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The phrase 'for the configured key' clarifies that key selection is implicit from configuration rather than passed as an argument, which is a small but real addition beyond the empty schema.
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 names the resource (usage/quota data) and enumerates the specific fields returned: live and test usage, remaining allowance, reset time, batch limits, monitor capacity. That lets an agent distinguish it from the screening/vessel/port siblings without opening the schema. It lacks an explicit verb, but the content is unambiguous.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor prerequisites or caveats. The sibling tools are functionally unrelated, so a routing conflict is unlikely, but the description offers no trigger conditions, e.g. before a batch operation or after a quota error.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.