enduraw-MCP

get_enduraw_analysis_quota

Checks the current user's Enduraw activity analysis quota, showing tier, limit, used, remaining, and reset date so users can monitor available analysis capacity.

Instructions

Checks the current user's activity analysis quota on Enduraw (tier, limit, used, remaining, reset date).

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": "get_enduraw_analysis_quota"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the returned components (tier, limit, used, remaining, reset date), which signals this is a read-only lookup that changes nothing. It says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, behavior at zero remaining quota, or the format of the reset date, which leaves meaningful gaps for an unannotated 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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the returned fields in a compact parenthetical. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs to be re-read.

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 read tool with no output schema, enumerating the returned fields is the key compensating detail and it is present. The remaining gap is context about the caller's identity and what an agent should do when remaining quota is zero, which matters for a quota tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to clarify and the baseline is a 4. The description implicitly scopes the call to 'the current user', which is the only semantic an agent could need here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb ('Checks') and resource ('activity analysis quota') and names the concrete data points returned (tier, limit, used, remaining, reset date). That is enough to distinguish it from the sibling tools, which are all activity/athlete data readers rather than account-limit lookups, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 use case is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this to see whether analysis quota remains before or after invoking analysis tools, but the description states no when-to-use condition, no exclusions, and no alternatives. No prerequisites (such as an authenticated current user) are mentioned either.

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