Skip to main content
Glama

Get billing and usage

get_billing
Read-onlyIdempotent

Plan, AI credits left, and usage against the plan's limits.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_billing"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsNoWhich fields to return. Leave out for the usual ones: plan_name, subscribed, payment_problem, in_trial, current_period_end, cancel_at_period_end, credits, usage, limits, mcp_plan.
project_idNoWorkspace to work in (from list_projects). Leave out for the default one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds modest content context by naming what is returned (plan state, remaining credits, usage vs limits) but says nothing about whether omitted data is error-prone or how stale/real-time the figures are.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with zero filler, and the most important content (plan, credits, usage) is front-loaded. It is arguably too compressed, but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description must sketch the return shape, and it only broadly lists three content areas while the schema exposes 19 selectable fields. For a two-optional-parameter read tool this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing what 'usage' and 'limits' actually contain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the fields parameter documents the default subset and the project_id parameter points to list_projects. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The phrase 'Plan, AI credits left, and usage against the plan's limits' names the concrete resources returned, so an agent knows this is the billing/entitlement read tool. It is a noun fragment rather than a verb+resource statement and never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_budget, which plausibly overlaps.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_budget, list_budget_entries, or get_overview_stats, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the resources listed.

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.