img-src MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get', 'Shows') and specifies what data is returned (uploads, storage, bandwidth, API usage). However, it doesn't mention whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or any error conditions—leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core purpose, and the second elaborates on specific metrics. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate coverage of what the tool does. However, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., structured data vs. text), time ranges for usage data, or whether it includes historical trends—which would be helpful for a usage monitoring tool even without complex schema requirements.

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 has zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it focuses instead on what the tool returns, which is correct for a parameterless query tool.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get', 'Shows') and resources ('current usage statistics', 'uploads, storage, bandwidth, and API request usage'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_image or get_settings by focusing on account-level usage metrics rather than individual resources.

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 description implies usage context by specifying 'for your img-src.io account' and 'against your plan limits', suggesting this is for monitoring account quotas. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like get_settings (which might include usage data) or provide clear exclusions for when other tools would be more appropriate.

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