Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Noun MCP Server

Noun MCP Server

by alisaitteke
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

check_usage

Check current API usage against hourly, daily, and monthly limits, with breakdown by service and icon calls. Cached for 5 minutes.

Instructions

Show current API usage vs limits for hourly, daily, and monthly windows, split into service calls vs icon calls. Cached for 5 minutes.

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": "check_usage"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds one behavioral detail beyond the basic function: 'Cached for 5 minutes,' which tells the agent about data freshness. However, it doesn't disclose authentication requirements, side effects, or error behavior. 'Show' implies read-only, but that is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds the caching behavior. No filler or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only usage check with no parameters, the description covers the essential scope (time windows, call-type split) and even adds a caching note. It doesn't specify the output data format, but the lack of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool make this acceptable. An agent can infer the response structure well enough to proceed.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the baseline rule, this warrants a 4; the description correctly omits parameter details because none exist.

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?

States a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('current API usage vs limits'), with granularity (hourly/daily/monthly windows) and a split (service calls vs icon calls). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_icon and search_collections, which are all icon/collection tools.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or exclusions are stated, but the domain is so distinct from siblings that an agent can easily infer when to invoke it. The description provides clear context by enumerating the time windows and call categories, though it doesn't explicitly say 'use this when checking rate limits.'

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