workspaces.billing.envelopes.list
GET /v1/workspaces/:slug/billing/accounts/:accountId/envelopes
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| pathParams | No |
ClawSpan ShardLink MCP
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
D1.5/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions, pagination, data scope, or side effects. It only gives the HTTP method and path.
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?
Extremely concise to the point of under-specification. A single line does not earn its place as it adds minimal value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of billing envelopes and lack of schema descriptions or output schema, the description is far from complete. It fails to cover basic usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to parameters. The URL implies path params but they are not explained. body and query are completely opaque.
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?
Description only shows the HTTP endpoint, not what the tool does. The name suggests listing envelopes, but the description fails to state 'List billing envelopes for a workspace account'. It is too vague.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like create, revoke, status. The description provides no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
All 43 tools are clearly disambiguated by a hierarchical dot-separated naming scheme (e.g., workspaces.billing.accounts.create). Each tool targets a unique combination of resource and action, with no apparent overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
The naming follows a consistent <domain>.<subdomain>.<action> pattern, with actions as verbs (create, list, revoke, etc.). The use of underscores within the final component is uniform, making the pattern predictable across all tools.
Tool Count4/5
At 43 tools, the server covers a broad scope (contracts, billing, workspaces, tasks, etc.), which justifies the high count. However, it is slightly above the typical well-scoped range of 3-15, risking overwhelm.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers many operations for billing, tasks, and workspace management, but lacks fundamental create/update/delete for some core resources (e.g., no workspace.create or instruments.delete). Agents may encounter dead ends.