Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
codexwatch

codexwatch

by psychofict
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

plan_limits

Reports current ChatGPT plan Codex limits from the newest session log: each window's percent used, reset time, burn rate and projected fill time; with codexhop, compares saved accounts.

Instructions

Where the ChatGPT plan's Codex limits stand now: each window's percent used, reset time, burn rate per hour and projected time it fills, read from the newest session log. With codexhop installed, also every saved account's last reading and the account with the most 5-hour room.

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": "plan_limits"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the data source (newest session log) and conditional codexhop behavior, which is useful, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, or how failures are reported.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences and front-loads the core output. The optional codexhop clause is useful rather than filler, though the first sentence is dense and could be split for readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description explains the key returned metrics and optional account-level readings. However, it does not describe the shape of the response or how windows are identified, leaving some completeness gaps.

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 input parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter names or argument meanings that need additional explanation beyond the empty schema.

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 names a specific resource and scope: current ChatGPT plan Codex limits, broken into per-window usage, reset time, burn rate, and projected fill time. It is clear what the tool reports, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as usage_summary or quota_forensics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling alternative is named. The phrase "stand now" implies a current-status use case, but the agent must infer that without routing help.

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