telgea_get_user_cost_thresholdRetrieve a user's effective cost threshold for DATA, VOICE, SMS, or MMS, plus current spend and usage-paused status, to monitor spending limits.
A user’s effective cost threshold for DATA, VOICE (international calls), SMS or MMS, current spend this period, and whether usage is paused.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | Yes | User id. | |
| usageType | Yes | VOICE means international calling. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds return-shape context (current spend, paused flag) and the word 'effective', hinting the value may be derived rather than the raw configured threshold — but it never explains that distinction, nor error behavior for an unknown userId.
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 efficient sentence with no filler, though it leads with a noun phrase ('A user's effective cost threshold...') rather than a verb, making the action slightly less front-loaded than ideal.
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 does list what is returned (threshold, current spend, paused status), which is useful. But it omits what 'effective' means versus configured, whether paused reflects line suspension, and how a missing user/usage type behaves — gaps that matter for a lookup tool.
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%, including the enum and the clarifying note that VOICE means international calling, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the usage-type categories (DATA, VOICE, SMS/MMS) without adding anything the schema doesn't already say.
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 clearly names the resource (a user's effective cost threshold, broken down by DATA/VOICE/SMS/MMS) plus the companion fields (current spend, paused status). It distinguishes itself implicitly from list_cost_thresholds and set_cost_threshold by being a per-user, per-usage-type lookup, though it never explicitly frames itself as 'get X for one user/usage type' against those siblings.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus list_cost_thresholds or get_user_plan, and no note on when cost threshold data is meaningful (e.g., before calling set_cost_threshold). The agent must infer the use case entirely from the sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.