get_tariffRetrieves the current tariff for a specified workspace, enabling users to view plan details and billing information.
This method returns the current tariff for the specified workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workspaceId | No | Workspace identifier. -1 means the default workspace. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the tariff is 'current' and scoped to a specified workspace, which is minimal but useful context beyond the annotations and schema.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, no redundant clauses. Appropriately sized for a simple getter.
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 one-parameter read-only getter, the annotations and schema cover invocation adequately. However, with no output schema, the description does not explain what the tariff response contains, leaving a small gap for the agent.
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 sole parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the default -1 meaning default workspace. The description references workspace scoping but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?
The description states a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('the current tariff') scoped to a workspace. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like get_limits because no other tool returns tariff data, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.
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 guidance on when to prefer this tool, what prerequisites exist, or what alternatives exist. An agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.