mcp-coreclaw

get_account_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the current user's CoreClaw account balance and traffic quota.

WHEN TO USE: Use when the user asks for balance, remaining traffic, quota, billing state, or whether they can run jobs. 中文触发: 当用户要在 CoreClaw 中查询、运行、重跑、停止、导出或查看对应 worker/run/task 数据时使用。

WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use public web search or code search for private CoreClaw platform data. Do not call excluded internal worker-version or internal-detail APIs.

RETURNS: JSON with balance and balance_expiration_at.

WORKFLOW: Terminal call or preflight before run_worker.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying return fields ('balance and balance_expiration_at') and workflow context ('Terminal call or preflight before run_worker'), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond annotations.

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?

The description is concise, with structured sections (WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, RETURNS, WORKFLOW). Every sentence serves a purpose, and the information is front-loaded for quick comprehension.

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?

Given no parameters, rich annotations, and multiple sibling tools, the description fully covers purpose, usage guidance, and return information. It is complete for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool.

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

Parameters5/5

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

There are no parameters (input schema has no properties), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns, which is especially valuable given the absence of output schema.

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?

The description clearly states 'Get the current user's CoreClaw account balance and traffic quota,' using a specific verb and resource. It uniquely identifies the tool's purpose, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on workers and runs.

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?

The description includes explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections, providing clear context for usage and exclusion. It also includes Chinese triggers, offering comprehensive guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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

All mcp-coreclaw tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools follow a systematic scope pattern (user's last run, worker's last run, specific run), so intent is discernible, but the reversed word order (e.g., get_last_worker_run vs get_worker_last_run) makes many tools easy to conflate. Descriptions are thorough, yet the sheer number of near-identical names creates real misselection risk.

Naming Consistency3/5

Verbs and nouns are consistently snake_case, but the modifier order alternates unpredictably—some tools say last_worker_run, others worker_last_run—across abort/export/get/list/rerun groups. This inconsistency makes the set feel less coherent than a strict verb_noun pattern would.

Tool Count2/5

At 42 tools, the surface is heavily inflated by triplicating every run-related action across user-last, worker-last, and specific-run scopes. Many of these could be consolidated into a single tool with optional worker_id/run_id parameters, making the count feel excessive for the domain.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the full lifecycle of workers, runs, tasks, queue, and account, including poll/verify/batch operations that go beyond basic CRUD. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit run-input retrieval, no worker editing), but agents can achieve all common workflows without dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?