virtualsms_get_proxy_usageGet cached GB used/remaining and request count for one proxy. Cheap, no upstream call. Reads a cached value refreshed every ~5 minutes.
Get cached GB used/remaining and request count for one proxy. Cheap, no upstream call. Reads a cached value refreshed every ~5 minutes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| proxy_id | Yes | Proxy ID returned by list_proxies or buy_proxy |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already cover safety, but the description adds important behavior: it does not make an upstream call, returns cached data, and refreshes every ~5 minutes. This is value beyond annotations and sets agent expectations correctly.
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?
Two sentences, each earning its place. The first states the kernel and the second adds critical behavioral context (cached, cheap, refresh time). Effective front-loading.
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?
The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema, simple scalar return) and the description fully explains its behavior. Nothing missing for correct invocation.
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 100% coverage: proxy_id is described as 'Proxy ID returned by list_proxies or buy_proxy'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given full schema coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific action ('Get cached GB used/remaining and request count') and the resource ('one proxy'), which is clear. It distinguishes from siblings like virtualsms_get_proxy_usage_history by focusing on 'cached' and 'for one proxy', but does not explicitly name that sibling.
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?
The description clearly indicates it returns cached data, refreshing every ~5 minutes, which implies when to use it (quick checks) versus a live/historical call. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context of 'cached' and 'cheap' gives clear usage signals.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.