Cue

Check Usage

check_usage

Check remaining daily Cue honesty checks and prompt rewrites, and see your current plan, without consuming quota.

Instructions

Show how many Cue honesty checks and prompt rewrites the user has left today, and which plan they are on. Consumes no quota.

Tool call template

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": "check_usage"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 16, 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 behavioral burden, and it does add one genuinely useful trait: it explicitly states the call consumes no quota, which is non-obvious and affects how freely an agent should call it. Beyond that it discloses nothing about read-only semantics, caching, or freshness of the 'today' window, leaving gaps for a no-annotation 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the substantive content (what is returned) is front-loaded before the incidental quota note. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not detail the return shape, and it gives a compact preview of the returned fields instead. Combined with zero parameters and brief mention of the no-quota behavior, this is nearly complete; only the relationship to 'cue_status' is left unaddressed.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so this dimension defaults to the baseline of 4 per the scoring rules. There is no argument surface an agent could mis-specify, and the description correctly avoids inventing filter options that the schema does not support.

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 states a specific verb ('Show') and three concrete resources the agent gets back: remaining honesty checks, remaining prompt rewrites, and the current plan. It is immediately clear what this tool returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling 'cue_status', which an agent might reasonably assume reports the same state.

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 the tool to call when it needs to know remaining quota before spending it. The 'today' scoping and the 'consumes no quota' note nudge toward calling it freely, but no alternative (e.g. cue_status) is named or excluded, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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

Deploy Server