Inspect Groq API key pool status, active key counts, and cooldown timers to verify quota availability and troubleshoot rate limits before transcription.
Inspect Groq API key pool status, active key counts, and cooldown timers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the informational nature of the call and the categories of data returned (key counts, cooldown timers), implying a safe read, but it says nothing about permissions, whether cooldowns reflect per-key or global state, or how fresh the snapshot is.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause names a distinct piece of information the tool exposes. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is buried.
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 tool with an output schema that documents the return shape, the description covers what the tool is and roughly what it reports. Only minor operational context (e.g., why cooldowns matter, staleness) is missing.
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, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the already-complete schema. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.
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 gives a specific verb ('Inspect') plus a concrete resource set: Groq API key pool status, active key counts, and cooldown timers. An agent can immediately tell this is a read-only status check and, since the sibling tools are all YouTube/video utilities, there is little risk of confusion even without explicit differentiation.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this before or when troubleshooting Groq-backed operations, but the description never says when to use it, when not to, or what to do with the result. There are no alternatives to disambiguate against, which limits the harm but also the value.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.