workspaces.billing.instruments.list
GET /v1/workspaces/:slug/billing/accounts/:accountId/instruments
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
D1.3/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not mention behavioral traits such as read-only, destructive potential, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The HTTP method GET is implicit but not stated.
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?
The description is extremely short but unhelpfully so; it is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to convey essential information, making it inadequate.
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?
With 3 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.
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?
The input schema provides no description for parameters (body, query, pathParams are all generic objects with no details). The description adds no parameter information, leaving agents entirely clueless.
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 description only provides the HTTP path, which does not explicitly state the tool's purpose. The name suggests listing billing instruments, but the description fails to clarify the action, leaving ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'attach' or 'verify'. The description offers no context for decision-making.
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.