Analyzera

What this caller may do

get_access

Read-onlyIdempotent

The caller's plan, allowances remaining, currency and market.

Answers "what can I do here". Useful before a build or backtest, which each
spend a monthly allowance, and after a refusal that mentions a limit. It
counts as one call and spends no build or backtest allowance.

``excluded_tools`` lists tools this plan does not include; those are refused
regardless of arguments.
``counted: false`` on a meter means the counter could not be read and its
figures are unknown.

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_access"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`person_id`	No	The id of one person, family or entity this login holds. Omit for everything this login holds.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`plan`	Yes	The plan name, e.g. `free`.
`tools`	No	Every tool this plan includes, sorted.
`metered`	No	Empty on an unmetered plan, which means no ceilings.
`currency`	Yes	The client's currency. Every strategy this surface can build is denominated in it.
`plan_title`	Yes
`jurisdiction`	No	Where the client is booked, or None where their person node records nothing. It narrows which home markets appear on the shelf; it grants nothing.
`excluded_tools`	No	Registered on this server but NOT in this plan. Calling one is refused whatever the arguments; a retry does not change that.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the call-accounting side effect, explains how excluded_tools should be interpreted as a hard refusal regardless of arguments, and warns that counted: false means the meter is unreadable. These are non-obvious semantics an agent could not infer otherwise.

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?

Front-loaded with the return contents, then usage triggers, then output caveats — a sensible ordering with no filler. It is slightly dense with backticked field names, but each sentence carries distinct information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be restated, yet the description still flags the two output cases that could cause misreads (excluded_tools refusal semantics, counted: false). For a one-optional-param read tool, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional person_id is already well documented in the schema ('one person, family or entity this login holds; omit for everything'). The description adds no additional scope or format guidance for it, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Opens with a concrete enumeration of what is returned (plan, allowances remaining, currency, market) and a plain-language restatement ('what can I do here'). Nothing in the sibling list offers entitlements/quotas, so it is clearly distinguishable from describe_build_options or list_* tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit triggers: before a build or backtest because each spends a monthly allowance, and after a refusal that mentions a limit. It also states the cost model (counts as one call, spends no build/backtest allowance), which is exactly the decision information an agent needs to choose this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Analyzera tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?