Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Metrxbot

by com.metrxbot
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Cost Per Resolution

metrx_cost_per_resolution
Read-onlyIdempotent

The two numbers on a per-resolution AI bill (Intercom Fin, Zendesk AI, Sierra, Decagon): the effective price per billed resolution and, given total conversations, the billed-resolution share. The vendor's definition of resolved is echoed back verbatim as the vendor definition, not verified. Both numbers are the vendor's own count and come back labelled vendor-reported, not Verified. A pure function over your input: reads nothing, stores nothing, needs no key. It always ends with the next step: send one export (bill lines with ticket ids plus your ticket export for the same period) to check_vendor_bill, which recounts it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "bill_total": "<bill_total>",
      "billed_resolutions": "<billed_resolutions>",
      "period": "<period>"
    },
    "name": "metrx_cost_per_resolution"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
periodYesThe billing period the bill covers (from on or before to).
vendorNoThe vendor name, if you want it echoed.
currencyNoISO 4217 code of the bill, such as USD (the default) or EUR.
bill_totalYesWhat the vendor billed for the period, in the bill currency.
billed_resolutionsYesHow many resolutions the vendor billed in the period.
total_conversationsNoAll conversations the agent handled in the period; adds the billed-resolution share.
vendor_resolved_definitionNoThe vendor's own wording for what counts as resolved; echoed back verbatim as the vendor's definition, not verified.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: results are vendor-reported rather than Verified, the vendor's definition of 'resolved' is echoed verbatim and not validated, and the call reads nothing and stores nothing. Those provenance and trust semantics are exactly what an agent needs and cannot get from the annotations.

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?

It is front-loaded with the two outputs and then layers provenance and the next step, so the important content comes first. Some sentences restate schema wording almost verbatim (the vendor definition echo, the vendor-reported labelling), which is mild redundancy rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so by naming both computed numbers and their provenance labels. Seven parameters with three required are handled by a fully covered schema. The one small gap is that it does not say the share is omitted when total_conversations is absent.

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%, so every parameter is already documented, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only marginal interpretation, mainly clarifying that total_conversations is what produces the billed-resolution share and that vendor_resolved_definition is passed through unverified, both of which the schema also states.

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 names the exact outputs (effective price per billed resolution and billed-resolution share) and the exact inputs driving them, which is far more specific than the tool name alone. It also explicitly positions itself against the sibling check_vendor_bill, which recounts the same numbers from an export, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear usage context: this is a pure computation over numbers you already have, needs no key, and the stated next step is always to route the underlying export to check_vendor_bill for a recount. That routes the agent to the correct sibling. It does not state an explicit when-not-to-use condition, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

All Metrxbot 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