Skip to main content
Glama

Sliq

by com.getsliq
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get Credit Usage

get_credit_usage
Read-only

Current Sliq credit balance, 30-day spend by agent, the card saved for gift purchases, and — for a workspace member — the shared team block.

Returns {'balance': float, 'usage_by_agent': [{'agent_id', 'title', 'credits_used', 'is_agent'}, ...], 'gift_card': str, 'team': None | {'workspace_name', 'your_role', 'seats_used', 'seats_active', 'seat_limit', 'per_member_spend': [{'user_email', 'credits_used_30d', 'is_you'}, ...]}}. gift_card is the label of the card the user saved under Settings → Billing for gift purchases (e.g. 'Visa •••• 4242'), or '' when no card is saved. balance/usage_by_agent are the same rollup the Billing page renders; spend not tied to an agent groups by activity label (e.g. 'Standalone chat', 'Data extraction'). team is None for solo users and otherwise mirrors the Billing team card: seats_used counts invited+active seats (spoken for), seats_active only active ones. per_member_spend excludes removed members and unattributed charges, so it does not sum to pool spend — it is spend over the last 30 days.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
on_behalf_ofNoAn agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that client's account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / on_behalf_of
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "An agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that client's account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description goes well beyond that: it states balance/usage_by_agent mirror the Billing page rollup, that spend without an agent groups by activity label, that team is None for solo users, that seats_used counts invited+active while seats_active counts only active, and that per_member_spend excludes removed members and unattributed charges so it does not sum to pool spend.

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?

The description is long but front-loaded with a single-sentence summary, then a return-shape block, then field-by-field semantics. Density is justified because there is no output schema to carry the return contract, though a couple of clauses could be trimmed.

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?

With no output schema and a nested, non-obvious return value, the description fully documents the response keys and their edge-case semantics (empty gift_card string, None team, attribution rules). An agent has everything needed to interpret the result correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter on_behalf_of already has a thorough schema description, so the baseline of 3 applies. The prose adds nothing about the parameter, though it does helpfully frame what the returned data represents when acting on behalf of a client.

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 opening sentence enumerates exactly what is retrieved — credit balance, 30-day spend by agent, saved gift card, and the team block — naming a very specific resource that cannot be confused with siblings like check_email_daily_usage or check_linkedin_daily_usage.

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: an agent reading 'balance', 'spend by agent', 'per_member_spend' will infer this is the billing/credit lookup tool, and the schema's on_behalf_of note implies the agency-client case. But the description never states when to reach for this instead of related usage tools, nor any preconditions or exclusions.

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

All Sliq toolsInspect
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.

Resources