tebra_get_throttlesCheck API throttle intervals per endpoint to monitor Tebra account usage limits and avoid hitting rate limits.
Get the per-endpoint API throttle intervals (milliseconds between calls) that Tebra enforces for this account. Useful for monitoring API usage limits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only and non-exhaustive nature is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior context: results are account-specific, broken down per endpoint, and expressed in milliseconds. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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?
Two short sentences deliver the full definition and the intended use case in a front-loaded manner. Every word earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema fields or annotations.
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?
For a zero-parameter read-only utility, the description adequately conveys what is returned (per-endpoint throttle intervals in milliseconds) and why an agent would use it. There is no output schema, but the open-ended nature of the result is reasonably inferable; a sample response would be a nice enhancement, not a necessity.
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 and no required inputs, so there is no parameter documentation burden for the description to carry. The mention that throttles are enforced 'for this account' usefully clarifies that the response is account-scoped without needing any caller-supplied arguments.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the per-endpoint API throttle intervals in milliseconds that Tebra enforces for the current account. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on charges, appointments, patients, or documents. The resource and scope are 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 'useful for monitoring API usage limits' gives a clear practical context for when to call this tool. It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not conditions, but no sibling tool appears to be a competing throttles endpoint, so the guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.