Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
subtask

subtask

by tedin7
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

engines

Check available execution backends and their free quotas and API spend limits so coding agents can choose an isolated provider for parallel background jobs.

Instructions

Free quota and API spend.

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": "engines"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about whether the call is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or what it returns. The zero-parameter schema hints at a safe lookup, but that is inference rather than disclosure.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency: a single sentence fragment with no action verb and no leading statement of what the tool does. It earns its place only as a topic label, not as usable guidance.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a zero-parameter reporting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least say what data comes back and in what form. It gives neither, so an agent knows only a vague subject area before calling.

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 nothing for the description to explain beyond the schema and the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is reported as 100% for an empty object, so no gap exists here.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The fragment 'Free quota and API spend.' names a topic but no verb or resource action, so it is unclear whether the tool retrieves, reports, or resets quota data. It also does not connect the topic to the tool name 'engines', leaving the agent to guess at the relationship.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative among the many siblings such as 'status' or 'inspect'. The agent has no signal for choosing this tool over those.

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