balanceRead-only verify credit balance for a workspace. Call this before a batch. Does not burn credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workspace_token | No | Workspace token from checkout. Or send Authorization: Bearer. |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation is read-only and 'Does not burn credits,' which are the key behavioral traits for a balance-checking tool. It stops short of detailing response behavior or error cases, but those are less critical here.
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?
Three short sentences with no filler. Each sentence earns its place: what it does, when to use it, and the non-destructive side effect. The most important information is front-loaded.
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 simple tool with one optional, fully documented parameter, the description gives sufficient operational context: it is read-only, safe before a batch, and does not consume credits. The absence of an output schema means some return-value ambiguity exists, but the tool is simple enough that the purpose largely implies the response.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single optional parameter. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema is doing the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb ('verify'), a clear resource ('credit balance'), and a scope ('for a workspace'). It explicitly labels the operation as read-only, which immediately distinguishes it from the sibling tools receipts and verify_email.
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?
Provides an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Call this before a batch.' It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for a simple preflight balance check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: balance checks credits, receipts lists past proofs, and verify_email performs email verification. No overlap exists, making tool selection unambiguous.
balance and receipts are noun-style names, while verify_email follows verb_noun convention. While each name is clear, the mixed style is slightly inconsistent, though not confusing.
Three tools are minimal but appropriate for a server focused on email verification and billing queries. The scope is narrow, so the low count is well-suited.
The tools cover the core lifecycle: checking balance, viewing receipts, and verifying emails. Minor gaps exist (e.g., purchasing credits) but these are likely handled externally, so the surface is adequate.