Check used and available storage space in O2 accounts to monitor quota and plan file transfers or cleanup.
Consulta el espacio ocupado y disponible en O2.
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": "o2_quota"
}
}| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the tool reports occupied and available space, which is modest additional context and does not cover permissions, scoping, or freshness of the figures.
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 short sentence with no filler; the resource and the two reported quantities are front-loaded. Nothing needs trimming or reordering.
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 no-parameter, read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what data comes back (used and available space). This is nearly sufficient, though it omits whether the figures are account-wide or per-workspace and how they are formatted.
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, and the schema is trivially complete, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameters whose semantics the description could clarify further.
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 ('Consulta') and resource ('espacio ocupado y disponible en O2'), so an agent knows it retrieves quota information. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from near-neighbours like o2_status or cloud_quota, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus o2_status, o2_list, or the parallel cloud_quota tool. The name and description imply it is the quota check, but the agent must infer that on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.