Open the Telnyx Usage & Cost Explorer MCP App for usage and cost analysis.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "open_usage_cost_explorer"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | No | Optional no-op app opener action; omit to open the app. | open |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / actionAdded value: +{
+ "default": "open",
+ "description": "Optional no-op app opener action; omit to open the app.",
+ "enum": [
+ "open"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral details beyond the purpose (opening an app), which is consistent with annotations and not contradictory.
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?
The description is one short sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.
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 app-opening tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is sufficient. It does not explain return values, but no output schema exists and the open action implies launching a UI, which is clear enough.
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 single parameter 'action' is fully documented in the schema with enum and description, including its optional no-op nature. The description does not need to add more, as schema coverage is 100%.
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 uses a specific verb ('open') and names the exact resource ('Telnyx Usage & Cost Explorer MCP App'), making it distinct from sibling open tools like open_number_intelligence and open_voice_monitor. It clearly states the tool's function with no ambiguity.
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 phrase 'for usage and cost analysis' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is enough for an agent to decide.
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.