get_concurrencyCheck how many calls are running now versus your account's maximum concurrent call limit. Read-only, for monitoring capacity without making changes.
Return how many calls are running right now versus the account's maximum concurrent calls. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'Read-only' merely restates that. Its real added value is disclosing the return content (current running calls vs. account maximum), which matters since there is no output schema. It says nothing about scope (account vs. subaccount) or any rate limits.
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 short sentences with the substantive payload (current vs. maximum concurrency) front-loaded and no filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully carries the return-value meaning. It omits scope (which account/subaccount the limit applies to) and does not distinguish itself from neighboring live-call tools, which is the only real gap for such a simple read.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no arguments whose semantics could be misread, and the description correctly introduces none.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: returns current running calls versus the account's maximum concurrency. It is distinguishable from call-listing siblings because it reports a capacity ratio rather than calls themselves. It does not explicitly name a sibling it differs from, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternative tools are referenced (e.g., list_live_calls for the actual call list). The purpose implies a capacity-check use case, but the agent must infer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.