@instantreply/mcp

get_developer_limits

Read-only

Retrieve API rate limits, key quotas, and webhook endpoint quotas for your plan tier. Use this to verify current limits and prevent quota errors.

Instructions

Get API rate limits, API key quota, and webhook endpoint quota for the current key plan tier.

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_developer_limits"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only profile, so the description needn't restate safety. It does add useful framing that the values are plan-tier limits rather than observed usage, but it says nothing about authentication scope or whether limits are cached/refreshed.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource and the scoping qualifier with no filler. Every clause maps to a real part of the return.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essentials by naming the three returned quantities and their scope. It would be stronger if it hinted at the shape of the response (e.g., nested per-endpoint rate limits), but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the schema carries no semantic burden and the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate or compensate for.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and enumerates the three resources returned (API rate limits, API key quota, webhook endpoint quota), which is more concrete than the bare name. It also scopes the result to 'the current key plan tier', which implicitly separates it from usage-oriented siblings like get_usage, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The description never says when to reach for this tool versus get_usage or get_developer_capabilities, nor does it mention prerequisites. Usage is only inferable from the fact that it reports limits, which is weak guidance for an agent choosing among many getters.

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