Skip to main content
Glama

EchoRelay

by dev.echorelay

get_billing

Read-only

Get the project's credit balances (paid + testing) and which ledger it settles on. billingModel is prepaid (metered against the credit balance) or invoiceable (an Enterprise account, settled on the contract — its credit fields read empty/zero by design, not because it is out of credits). A zero balance is not on its own a reason to stop: live traffic is never refused for an empty balance, and a free-tier project is exempt from live credit billing entirely. Only the testing pool refuses when exhausted (402 testing_credits_exhausted). Read this before concluding from any other field that a project cannot send.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context: invoiceable accounts show zero credit fields by design, live traffic is never refused for empty balance, free-tier is exempt, and only the testing pool can refuse with a specific 402 error. This deepens the agent's understanding of edge cases.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in sentence one, followed by valuable interpretive guidance. It is longer than necessary but every sentence adds context; a slightly tighter version might be more concise.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers the key interpretation nuances well. It does not enumerate the exact response fields (e.g., paid_credits, testing_credits) beyond mentioning balances and billingModel, but it provides enough for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get the project's credit balances (paid + testing) and which ledger it settles on.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like list_credit_packs by focusing on the project-level balances and settlement ledger.

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 explicitly positions the tool as a prerequisite check: 'Read this before concluding from any other field that a project cannot send.' It provides context on interpreting billingModel and zero balances. However, it does not name alternative tools for billing-related queries, though the context is clear.

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

All EchoRelay 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools target distinct resources and the descriptions are unusually explicit, but the billing cluster (change_plan/cancel_subscription and the many add-on actions) plus the preview/diff tools overlap and could cause mis-selection. config_diff, dry_run_endpoint, and preview_line_draft all read as 'preview what will change' at first glance despite different scopes.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, set_*, update_*, delete_*. It is only held back by a few naming outliers such as config_diff and default_endpoint_template, which break the verb-first convention.

Tool Count1/5

78 tools is an extreme mismatch for an MCP server surface, even accounting for the broad management/relay domain. Such a large surface will overwhelm model context and make tool selection materially harder; this would be better split into focused servers for configuration, data-plane operations, and billing.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is very thorough: projects, lines, endpoints, credentials, keys, configs/drafts, DLQ, requests, metrics, audit, team, and billing are all represented. Only minor gaps exist, such as no direct single-line get/update and the intentional inability to widen the outbound allowlist or lift archive protection via API.

Resources