Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
keyso-mcp

keyso-mcp

by abukreev-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

keyso_get_limits_all

Retrieve current usage limits for all Keys.so API tools to monitor remaining quotas and avoid request interruptions.

Instructions

Лимиты по инструментам Method: GET Path: /limits/all Пример запроса https://api.keys.so/limits/all

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "keyso_get_limits_all"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenNoAPI token override (fallback: KEYSO_TOKEN env)
base_urlNoOverride API base URL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the HTTP method, path, and an example request, which conveys this is a read-style call, but it does not mention authentication implications, rate-limit behavior, or what the response contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the essential resource, method, path, and example request. It avoids filler, though the Russian noun phrase rather than a proper sentence slightly reduces clarity for non-Russian agents.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple zero-required-parameter GET tool, the description is minimally sufficient: it provides the endpoint and example URL. However, with no output schema and no usage guidance, it leaves the agent to infer what the returned limits represent and when to prefer this over sibling limit-related tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so token and base_url are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description identifies the resource as tool limits ('Лимиты по инструментам') and gives the exact endpoint path /limits/all with GET method, so an agent can infer this retrieves all tool limits. It doesn't explicitly use an imperative verb or contrast with sibling tools, but the endpoint and example URL make the purpose clear.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as keyso_get_monitoring_id_limits, and no mention of prerequisites or context. The intended use is only implied by the endpoint name and description.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools