telgea_server_statusCheck which tiers are enabled on this instance and how much daily request budget remains; this local discovery does not call Telgea.
Show which tiers are enabled on this instance and how much of the daily request budget is used. Does not call Telgea. Discovery only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the call does not hit the Telgea API and by naming the two facts returned (tiers, budget usage) — material for an agent deciding whether it is safe/cheap to call. Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the remaining burden is light. Minor tension: openWorldHint=true suggests external interaction while the description emphasizes no external call.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with what it returns, followed by the key constraint and the scope label. Nothing redundant; every sentence carries information.
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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool the description is nearly sufficient, and it compensates for the absent output schema by naming the returned facts. It stops short of describing the response shape (e.g. how tiers or budget usage are formatted), which is the only remaining gap.
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 no parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the input level, and it correctly signals a parameterless invocation.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: shows enabled tiers and daily request budget consumption for this instance. The 'Does not call Telgea' clause cleanly separates it from every sibling tool, all of which are Telgea API operations on users, lines, plans, etc. An agent can identify it as the instance-level discovery tool without opening anything else.
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?
'Discovery only' and 'Does not call Telgea' imply a usage context (cheap pre-flight check of capabilities/quota), but there is no explicit 'use this when' or 'use X instead' routing. The agent must infer that this is the right first call before invoking budget-consuming sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.