api

Get Quota

account.quota

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get current credit balance and plan details for your API key. Free — no credits consumed. Check this before running credit-consuming operations (extract, summarize, etc.) to avoid QUOTA_EXCEEDED errors. Returns plan tier, billing period, and usage breakdown. Returns: { plan_id, billing_period (YYYY-MM), credits_used, credits_limit, credits_remaining, status: "active"|"suspended" } Example prompts:

"How many credits do I have left this month?"
"Check my current quota and plan status."
"Am I going to hit my credit limit soon?"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`plan_id`	Yes
`credits_used`	Yes
`credits_limit`	Yes
`billing_period`	Yes
`credits_remaining`	Yes

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description adds that it's free and consumes no credits, which reinforces safety. Also details return structure (plan tier, billing period, credits breakdown, status) with example values.

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?

Description is fairly concise with three paragraphs: purpose/usage, return structure, and example prompts. Could be tighter but front-loads key information. Example prompts add helpful context for agents.

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 zero parameters and a rich output schema described inline, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidance, return format with field types and example statuses, and example queries. No gaps for a simple read-only tool.

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?

No parameters in schema, so no param info needed. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters. Description adds value by explaining what the tool returns, fulfilling the purpose with no parameters to document.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get current credit balance and plan details for your API key' with specific verb 'Get' and resource 'quota'. Emphasizes it's free and no credits consumed, distinguishing it from credit-consuming siblings like document.extract and document.summarize.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Check this before running credit-consuming operations to avoid QUOTA_EXCEEDED errors', providing clear when-to-use guidance. Includes example prompts demonstrating appropriate usage scenarios.

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

All api 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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with no overlap. The category prefixes (account, bundle, collection, document, job, receipt, url) and specific action names (get, notarize, verify, create, list, etc.) ensure that an agent can unambiguously select the correct tool for any task.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent category.action or category.action_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., bundle.get, collection.add_document, url.translate). No mixed conventions or irregular names, making the pattern predictable and easy to learn.

Tool Count4/5

With 22 tools, the set is somewhat large but each tool addresses a distinct need within a broad domain (evidence management, document AI, collections, URL processing, job tracking, receipts). The count is slightly above the typical well-scoped range but still reasonable given the scope.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface has notable gaps: there is no tool to create or delete an evidence bundle, nor to update collections or bundles. The core workflow of creating a bundle from a document is missing, and the lifecycle is incomplete, which would likely cause agent failures in typical use cases.

Resources

Need Help?