synapse-router

synapse_rate_limit_status

Query a model endpoint's sliding-window RPM/TPM usage, limits, and saturation status to assess rate-limit headroom and avoid throttling.

Instructions

Query sliding-window RPM and TPM consumption, ceiling limits, and saturation status for a model endpoint.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "endpoint_id": "<endpoint_id>"
    },
    "name": "synapse_rate_limit_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`endpoint_id`	Yes	Model endpoint ID to inspect.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; the word 'Query' implies a non-mutating read and the enumerated metrics give a useful picture of what comes back. However, it says nothing about behavior on an unknown endpoint, freshness of the sliding window, or whether the call itself is rate-limited, which matters for a rate-limit tool.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the scope ('sliding-window', 'for a model endpoint') attached to the right nouns. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essentials by naming the returned metrics, which substitutes for absent return-value documentation. Only the read-only guarantee and edge-case behavior are missing, both minor for this complexity level.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single endpoint_id parameter, so the baseline would be 3; the description does add a bit by scoping it to a 'model endpoint', reinforcing what kind of identifier is expected. It still does not clarify identifier format or where to obtain one.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description pairs a specific verb ('Query') with a precise resource and explicitly enumerates the metrics returned: sliding-window RPM and TPM consumption, ceiling limits, and saturation status for a model endpoint. That makes it distinguishable from generic status siblings like check_budget_status, but it never explicitly names or contrasts itself with an alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for inspecting rate-limit headroom, but there is no statement of when to call it versus check_budget_status or route_agent_step, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server