Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
coderocket-mcp

coderocket-mcp

by mlgraham
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

account_status

Retrieve account information including subscription tier, usage, and limits to monitor your plan.

Instructions

Get account information including subscription tier, usage, and limits.

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": "account_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of indicating safety. The verb 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation, which is a positive signal. However, it does not disclose whether authentication is required, rate limits, or the exact return format, which are minor gaps for a simple informational tool.

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 is a single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the structure is immediately understandable.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately covers what the user will learn (subscription tier, usage, limits). It would be stronger with explicit notes on return structure or authentication, but the low complexity keeps this from being a major gap.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by naming the output fields (subscription tier, usage, limits), which is not required but helps set expectations. No parameter semantics are needed.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'account information' and lists concrete contents (subscription tier, usage, limits). It is distinct from sibling tools focused on repos, PRs, health, and deployment, 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use this tool (when needing account information) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternatives. Since no sibling tool overlaps with account status, usage context is clear but not directly articulated.

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