get_usage
Your usage this billing period (read-only).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
StackResolve
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5
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 does disclose that the operation is read-only and scoped to the current billing period, which are useful safety cues. However, it does not clarify what 'usage' encompasses—such as calls, cost, tokens, or time—or what the returned data looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact sentence with no filler. Every word adds information: the scope ('this billing period') and the safety property ('read-only') are both included immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only getter, the description is minimally viable: an agent can safely invoke it based on the provided text. However, there is no output schema and no explanation of what 'usage' includes or how it is returned, leaving an agent uncertain about how to interpret the result.
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 description has no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the baseline for no-parameter tools, this is sufficient.
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 resource as 'your usage this billing period' and marks it read-only, which distinguishes it from related getters like get_pricing and get_profile. However, it uses the noun phrase 'Your usage' rather than an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' or 'returns', so the action is implied rather than stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_pricing, get_profile, or audit. 'Read-only' describes the nature of the operation but does not help an agent decide between available alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
resolve and find_tools_for_task both return ranked tool recommendations for a task, and how_to also surfaces recommendedTools, making their boundaries unclear. search_tools adds further overlap as a registry search by query and requirements. The company/research and registry lookup tools are more distinct, but the task-to-tool cluster is genuinely confusing.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming is almost entirely snake_case verb_noun: get_company, find_competitors, search_tools, compare_products, list_registry. The exceptions are audit and resolve as bare verbs and how_to as an idiom, but they are still recognizable.
Tool Count4/5
Fifteen tools is at the upper end of a reasonable range, and the broad scope of registry lookup, research, comparison, audit, and interface generation supports a larger surface. However, find_tools_for_task largely duplicates resolve, so the count is slightly higher than necessary.
Completeness4/5
The server covers the main registry lifecycle: listing, searching, getting records, comparing, researching, pricing, readiness auditing, and generating agent interfaces. It is intentionally read/research-oriented, so the lack of registry CRUD is not a severe gap. Minor missing pieces like direct per-product OpenAPI retrieval or registry entry management are workable around.