Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
apollo-mcp

apollo-mcp

by dyngai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

apollo_get_api_usage_stats

Retrieve your team's Apollo API usage and rate limits per minute, hour, and day across endpoints. Requires a master API key.

Instructions

View your team's Apollo API usage and per-minute/hour/day rate limits across endpoints. Requires a master Apollo API key — non-master keys will receive HTTP 403.

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": "apollo_get_api_usage_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the need for a master API key and the error for non-master keys. The read-only nature is implied by 'View'. It could add more behavioral context, but the output schema likely covers the return structure.

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?

The description consists of two concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second adds a critical usage requirement. No extraneous words or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no parameters, the presence of an output schema, and the simple nature of the tool, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, the authentication requirement, and the error case. No additional context seems necessary.

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 has no parameters and the schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds value by confirming no input is needed, serving as a baseline. No parameter information is missing.

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?

The description clearly states 'View your team's Apollo API usage and per-minute/hour/day rate limits across endpoints', using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings, as none of the other 43 tools are for viewing API usage stats.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use it (to view usage/rate limits) and provides a crucial prerequisite (requires a master API key) along with the consequence of using a non-master key (HTTP 403). However, it does not mention any alternative tools or when not to use it beyond the key restriction.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools