get_usageWhat the account is using against its plan — MCPs, events, team size.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mcp_count | Yes | ||
| member_count | Yes | ||
| tools_tracked | Yes | ||
| bytes_this_month | Yes | ||
| calls_this_month | Yes | ||
| tokens_this_month | Yes | ||
| cost_this_month_usd | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific categories of usage returned, but does not disclose potential behavioral details such as whether usage values are live or cached.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence front-loads the core concept and uses a dash to succinctly list the key components. There is no filler or redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and read/idempotent annotations, the description plus structural metadata is fully sufficient. An agent can invoke the tool correctly without any ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description correctly has nothing to add here, warranting the baseline score of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource ('account usage') and the purpose ('what the account is using against its plan'), with concrete examples: MCPs, events, team size. It is distinct enough from siblings like get_account and get_overview, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving plan consumption details, giving context for when to use it. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or references to alternative get_* sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.