tesla_usageRetrieve monthly call counts, estimated costs, and remaining wake budget locally without waking the vehicle.
Calls recorded this month, estimated cost, and the wake budget. Local only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so the bar is lowered. The description still adds two things beyond them: the reporting window ('this month') and the 'Local only' guarantee that no vehicle wake or network call occurs — exactly the side-effect detail an agent needs before calling a Tesla tool.
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, front-loaded with what is returned, with the operational constraint last. No filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented. What the tool reports, the time window, and the fact it stays local are all covered; only durability/scope of the recorded history is left unstated, which is minor for a zero-parameter read.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed, consistent with the empty schema.
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 names the concrete payload (calls this month, estimated cost, wake budget), which is specific enough to tell it apart from the vehicle-data siblings like tesla_get_status or tesla_get_odometer. It lacks an explicit verb ('returns'/'shows'), but 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?
'Local only' implicitly signals when to prefer this over siblings that touch the vehicle (tesla_wake_and_refresh, tesla_get_status), but no alternative is named and no explicit when/when-not condition is stated. Usage is inferable rather than guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.