get_usageCheck your APIEmpresas account plan, used and available queries, and credit balance without spending queries; not available in Sandbox.
Plan de la cuenta, consultas usadas y disponibles, y saldo de créditos. No gasta consultas. No funciona en el Sandbox.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: zero query consumption and Sandbox incompatibility, the latter being an environment-specific failure mode not visible anywhere else. Return format is not described, but the returned fields are enumerated.
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?
Three terse sentences: payload, cost, environment constraint. No filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (free to call, fails in Sandbox) are stated plainly at the end where they are easy to scan.
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 output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing plan, usage counts, and credit balance. Combined with annotations covering safety and the Sandbox caveat, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.
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 there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter guidance is expected or needed.
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 exact resource and its payload: account plan, queries used/available, and credit balance. It is a noun-phrase enumeration rather than a verb+resource statement, but an agent can immediately tell this returns account-consumption data. Sibling differentiation is unnecessary since none of the company-lookup siblings overlap with account usage.
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?
It gives two concrete usage conditions: calling it costs no queries, and it is unavailable in the Sandbox. That tells the agent when the tool is safe/cheap to call and where it will fail. It does not name alternatives, but no sibling tool covers this domain, so no routing guidance is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.