get_client_trafficRetrieve upload/download traffic totals and limits for a specific client by submitting their exact email, enabling quick usage checks and quota monitoring.
Get upload/download traffic totals and limits for a single client by exact email.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Exact client email/identifier |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns upload/download traffic totals and limits, but it does not disclose pagination, error handling, or response format. It provides minimal additional behavioral context beyond what annotations already imply.
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?
One sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the key resource (traffic totals and limits) and scope (single client, exact email). No fluff, every word earns its place.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema. The description explains the purpose and scope adequately for an agent to invoke it correctly. It doesn't describe the return structure, but given the simplicity and the annotations covering the safety profile, this gap is minor and acceptable.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema's parameter description ('Exact client email/identifier') already conveys the meaning. The tool description reinforces 'exact email' but adds no new semantic details like format, validation rules, or examples. Baseline of 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description clearly states the action (get), the resource (client traffic), and the scope (a single client by exact email). It distinctly separates this from sibling tools like list_clients or get_client by focusing specifically on traffic totals and limits, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 phrase 'for a single client by exact email' provides a clear condition: this tool is for retrieving traffic data for one specific client when the exact email is known. It implicitly suggests that without an email you'd need to find it first (via list_clients), but it does not explicitly name alternatives. This is adequate, though explicit sibling routing would earn a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.