AppmanAi

Usage and spend statistics

user_api_usage

Read-only

Summarise this account's recent AppmanAi usage: credits spent, request count and a per-route breakdown over a window of days. Free — spends no credits.

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": "user_api_usage"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No	Window to report on, in days. Default 30.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable context: the call is free and spends no credits, which matters for a metered-credits API. It does not describe response shape or ordering, but that is a small gap.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, zero waste, with the substantive output list front-loaded and the cost caveat trailing as a short qualifier. Nothing here is filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-optional-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description does explain what comes back (credits, request count, per-route breakdown) and how far back it looks. Only the internal shape of the per-route breakdown is left unspecified, which is minor.

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 'days' parameter carries its own description including the default and bounds. The phrase 'over a window of days' merely restates it without adding format or edge-case guidance, 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?

States a specific verb ('Summarise') and a clearly scoped resource ('this account's recent AppmanAi usage'), then enumerates the returned measures: credits spent, request count, per-route breakdown. It is distinguishable from all app/keyword siblings, though it never names user_balance, the closest neighbour.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the object of the summary (account usage/spend) rather than stated as a condition. There is no explicit 'use this when…' and no exclusion or pointer to user_balance for a current-balance question, leaving the agent to infer the split.

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

All AppmanAi 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.