mcp-github-enterprise

Get API rate limit

get_rate_limit

Read-onlyIdempotent

Report the current REST API rate-limit budget for core, search, and GraphQL, including reset times, so you can pace bulk reads before hitting limits.

Instructions

Report the current REST API rate-limit budget (core, search, graphql) and reset times. Use to pace bulk reads.

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": "get_rate_limit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds value by specifying what the response contains (budget figures for three separate buckets and their reset times) and its intended operational role. It does not address whether the call itself consumes quota or whether limits are per-token versus per-app, which would be useful but is not essential.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, followed by the operational use case. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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 zero-parameter, read-only inspection tool with full annotation coverage, this is nearly complete: the description enumerates the returned fields, compensating for the absent output schema. Only the quota-consumption and scope questions remain unaddressed, which are secondary details.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument call by describing only returned data.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb ("Report") and resource ("current REST API rate-limit budget") and enumerates the concrete buckets returned (core, search, graphql) plus reset times. No sibling tool covers rate limits, so an agent can immediately tell this is the quota-inspection tool rather than one of the org/repo listing tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

"Use to pace bulk reads" gives a clear situational trigger for invoking the tool, which is the main decision an agent needs. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming alternatives, but no sibling tool is a plausible substitute here, so the gap is minor.

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