get_quotaRetrieve your plan and remaining processing minutes to verify sufficient balance before creating vertical clips, preventing quota_exceeded failures.
The authenticated user's plan and remaining processing minutes. Call before large jobs; process_video fails with quota_exceeded when the balance is insufficient.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool requires an authenticated user and that it returns quota information. It also mentions the failure mode of process_video, which is useful context. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'get' implies it, and there are no side effects to disclose.
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 concise sentences: the first states what the tool does, the second provides actionable usage guidance. No filler or redundancy. The information is front-loaded for quick comprehension.
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 simple getter with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (plan and remaining minutes) and when to invoke it. It also ties into the process_video failure mode, covering the main usage scenario. The tool is straightforward, so nothing critical is missing.
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 an empty input schema, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies there is nothing to configure, and the focus is on the return value rather than inputs.
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: it retrieves the authenticated user's plan and remaining processing minutes. It uses a specific verb (get) and a specific resource (quota), distinguishing it from sibling tools like process_video or list_clips. No ambiguity.
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?
Explicitly instructs when to use: 'Call before large jobs', and provides the consequence of not doing so: 'process_video fails with quota_exceeded when the balance is insufficient'. This names the alternative tool and the condition, giving the agent clear decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.