Checks the authenticated user's Vadyu subscription plan, remaining monthly render credits, total render quota, and generation eligibility.
Check the authenticated user's active Vadyu subscription plan, remaining monthly render credits, total render quota, and generation eligibility.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does convey that this is a lookup scoped to the authenticated user, but it never states that the call is read-only / side-effect free, whether results are live or cached, or any rate-limit behavior.
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 zero filler; every clause names a distinct returned field. No repetition of the tool name and no padding.
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?
Because there is no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the values returned (plan, remaining credits, total quota, eligibility). For a zero-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, with only the read-only/no-side-effects guarantee left unstated.
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 parameter-level to explain; baseline 4 applies. No parameter claims in the description conflict with the empty schema.
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 ('Check') plus the exact resource: the authenticated user's active subscription plan, remaining monthly render credits, total quota, and generation eligibility. This is unmistakably distinct from every sibling tool, which deal with videos, forks, recipes, and sequences.
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?
The purpose implies when to call it (before attempting a render to confirm eligibility/credits), but the description never says so explicitly and names no alternatives or preconditions. Adequate but leaves the routing implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.