Skip to main content
Glama

Zernio

by com.zernio

Usage snapshot (default) or billed-spend metering (with params)

usage_get_usage
Read-only

Usage snapshot (default) or billed-spend metering (with params)

Args:
    reconcile: Snapshot mode only. For Stripe subscription users, `true` forces a

subscription reconciliation pass even when cached plan data looks complete. range: Window to report. cycle / prev-cycle resolve to the customer's real billing-period bounds (falling back to a trailing 30 days when no invoice exists yet); 7d…12mo are trailing windows; custom uses from / to. from_: Inclusive start (UTC date). Required when range=custom. to: Inclusive end (UTC date). Required when range=custom. Max span 366 days. granularity: Bucketing of the days series: day (one row per UTC day), month (one row per calendar month, dated to the 1st), or total (no series — read totals). Does not affect totals. group_by: Metering mode. Adds attribution: the window's spend split per profile or per account (keys are ids; resolve names via GET /v1/profiles / GET /v1/accounts). profile_id: Metering mode (pair with range). Project the payload onto this profile's attributed share. Mutually exclusive with accountId, and groupBy (if given) must be profile; 404 when the profile is not in your workspace (or outside a scoped key's profiles). account_id: Metering mode (pair with range). Project the payload onto this account's attributed share. Mutually exclusive with profileId, and groupBy (if given) must be account; 404 when the account is not visible to the caller.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNo
from_No
rangeNocycle
group_byNo
reconcileNo
account_idNo
profile_idNo
granularityNoday

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: reconciliation forcing for Stripe users, fallback to trailing 30 days when no invoice exists, 404 conditions for profile/account visibility, max 366-day span, and granularity's effect on the days series. This goes well beyond what annotations communicate.

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 first line duplicates the title, but the Args structure is well-organized and each parameter explanation is substantive. It is longer than average, yet the complexity of 8 interdependent parameters justifies the length.

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?

For a read-only tool with an output schema and 8 optional-but-interdependent parameters, the description covers modes, edge cases, fallback behavior, and parameter relationships. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden—and it delivers detailed semantics for all 8 parameters, including defaults, required-when conditions, mode-specific behavior, and mutual exclusivity. Every parameter is meaningfully explained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as returning a usage snapshot by default or billed-spend metering when params are supplied. It is specific about the resource (usage/billed spend), though it restates the title verbatim and does not explicitly compare against siblings like analytics_get_analytics.

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?

The description gives strong in-tool usage context: default snapshot mode, metering mode via group_by/profile/account params, required pairing for custom ranges, and mutual exclusions. However, it does not mention alternative tools or when to prefer this over analytics/similar siblings.

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

All Zernio toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools are clearly separated by domain prefix, but several overlap: posts_publish_now duplicates posts_create's publish_now mode, posts_edit_post vs posts_update is confusing without reading both descriptions, and analytics_get_analytics broadly overlaps the more specific analytics metrics tools. The descriptions do help disambiguate, but the large number of similar post/analytics helpers still creates selection risk.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a readable lower_snake resource_verb format, with domains like accounts_, posts_, profiles_, and queue_. However, there is notable drift: redundant suffixes (queue_create_queue_slot, tracking_tags_get_tracking_tag_stats), singular/plural mismatch (account_groups_ vs accounts_), non-prefixed helpers (call_tool, search_tools, docs_search), and paired verbs that seem arbitrary (posts_edit_post vs posts_update). It is readable but not cleanly consistent.

Tool Count2/5

51 tools is far above the range where an agent can quickly select the right one, and many entries are wrappers or variants: publish_now, edit_post, retry_all_failed, and multiple analytics/queue helpers could be consolidated. The broad domain justifies more tools than a tiny server, but this count is excessive and will add navigation overhead.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the core social media management lifecycle well: profiles, accounts, posts, scheduling, queueing, analytics, comments, mentions, media uploads, tracking tags, and usage billing are all represented. There are minor gaps—tracking tags are read-only, there is no direct account connection/disconnection flow, and published-post deletion is unsupported—but agents can complete the main workflows with these tools.

Resources