Retrieve quota details for a specific user by providing their user ID.
Get quotas for a specific user.
GET /api/v1/user/{userId}/quota
Args: user_id: Path parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the HTTP method and path, which is redundant with the annotation. It does not disclose any additional behavior such as response format, error conditions, or authentication needs, but given the annotations, the description is adequate and not contradictory.
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?
The description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The endpoint and argument section are cleanly presented. No unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
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?
There is an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere. For a simple read operation with one parameter, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not explain what 'quotas' means or what kind of quota information is returned, which could be ambiguous. Given the output schema exists and the operation is trivial, a 3 is appropriate.
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 schema provides user_id with type number and title 'User Id'. The description only says 'Path parameter', which is already evident from the endpoint. It adds no semantic meaning about what the user_id represents (e.g., 'The ID of the user to fetch quotas for'). Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate for missing parameter explanation.
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 states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'quotas' for a user, which is clear. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like get_user_by_user_id or get_user_by_user_id_requests, though it does not explicitly call out that differentiation. The endpoint URL reinforces the purpose.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools for user data or quotas, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and description, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.