obs_get_cloud_quotaRead your İTÜ Mail and İTÜ Bulut storage quotas from the Portal after logging in.
Read İTÜ Mail and İTÜ Bulut storage quota from the Portal (requires login).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Output schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -trueOutput schema / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "result": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "title": "Result",
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+}Output schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "result"
+]Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"obs_get_cloud_quotaDictOutput"New value: +"obs_get_cloud_quotaOutput"v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact beyond that: it requires an authenticated session, which is exactly the kind of auth context annotations do not convey. It stops short of describing failure behavior when unauthenticated, so not a 5.
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?
One sentence, verb-first, with the resource scope front-loaded and the login constraint appended in minimal parentheses. No filler and nothing an agent must skim past.
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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, and with zero parameters there is no argument burden. The auth requirement plus the named resources make it callable correctly; only the unauthenticated-failure path is left implicit.
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, which is the baseline-4 case per the rubric. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly presents no argument semantics.
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 (read) and two concrete resources (İTÜ Mail and İTÜ Bulut storage quota) plus the source system (the Portal). It is distinguishable from library_get_account in resource terms, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with near-neighbors like mail_status or auth_status.
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 parenthetical '(requires login)' gives a usable precondition for when the call will succeed, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over mail_status or auth_status, nor any exclusion. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.