get_plan_usage
Allowance usage against the plan's caps this period.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Cadencz
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys that the tool reports allowance usage against caps for the period, which implies a read-only query. However, it doesn't explicitly state return format, side-effect profile, or how 'this period' is defined.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the essential subject, comparison object, and time scope with no filler. Every word contributes meaning.
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 no-input, no-output-schema read tool, the description is reasonably complete: it names the quantity (allowance usage), the reference (plan caps), and the window (this period). It leaves 'the plan' and 'this period' slightly implicit, but sibling context makes these understandable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the empty input schema. The 100% schema coverage plus no parameters makes the baseline of 4 appropriate.
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 description clearly identifies the specific resource: allowance usage compared against the plan's caps for the current period. It distinguishes get_plan_usage from get_current_plan by focusing on usage/caps rather than plan details, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.
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?
The description implies the tool is used when the agent needs to know how much allowance has been consumed against plan caps this period. It does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or state when a sibling like get_current_plan or get_analytics would be more appropriate.
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
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action or resource: plan approval, scheduling, publishing, analytics, planning, and listing all have clear boundaries. Even the schedule/publish/approve tools are easy to distinguish because their source objects and outcomes are explicitly different.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming almost uniformly follows a verb_noun snake_case pattern, such as list_brains, compose_post, and cancel_scheduled_post. The one small deviation is publish_now, which uses an adverb rather than a noun object, but the overall pattern remains highly predictable.
Tool Count5/5
14 tools is well within the ideal range for a content planning and social media scheduling server. Each tool addresses a meaningful part of the workflow without unnecessary bloat or redundant helpers.
Completeness3/5
The tool surface covers planning, composing, scheduling, publishing, canceling, analytics, and workspace/channel context. However, there are notable lifecycle gaps: no update or delete operation for drafts or scheduled posts, and no way to fetch a single post's detail beyond a list.