Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ChatCut

by io.chatcut
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

estimate_generation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the current price, payer, available credits and effective eligibility for one exact generation tool input. A past quote or rejection does not establish current access. When the user resumes with continue/继续/jixu, recheck the original input before reporting eligibility, including when earlier retries were blocked. No generation, approval, reservation, upload, purchase or page opening. Supply the same input as submit_image/video/voice/music/sound. The price is an estimate, not a receipt or reservation. URL video resources must already be imported for reference metadata. Unknown inputs fail instead of being silently ignored.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "tool": "<tool>",
      "input": "<input>"
    },
    "name": "estimate_generation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toolYes
inputYes
projectIdNoProject for this call (full ID or unambiguous prefix). Explicit-timeline calls never change the target of later calls; legacy project selection applies otherwise.
timelineIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds behavior those do not cover: results are an estimate rather than a receipt or reservation, URL video resources must be pre-imported, and unknown inputs fail closed rather than being silently ignored. That is meaningful extra information, though it does not specify the response shape or whether eligibility can change within a session.

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 purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries operational content, including the retry/resume rule and the fail-closed note. It is dense to the point of being terse in places, and the resume-language parenthetical slightly interrupts the flow, but there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return semantics, and it does name the four values returned plus the failure behavior for unknown inputs. For a read-only preflight check on a nested-input tool it is close to complete, with the main residual gap being how price and eligibility relate to projectId/timelineId scoping.

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

Parameters3/5

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

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description does useful work on the hardest field by telling the agent to 'supply the same input as submit_image/video/voice/music/sound', which explains the otherwise empty nested input object. However, projectId and timelineId are never mentioned, and the enum values for 'tool' are left entirely to the schema.

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 first sentence states a precise verb plus a specific resource set: current price, payer, credits and effective eligibility for one exact generation tool input. It is immediately distinguishable from the submit_* siblings it names, and the closing line 'No generation, approval, reservation...' rules out the write tools an agent might confuse it with.

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 gives an explicit trigger ('when the user resumes with continue/继续/jixu, recheck the original input') and an explicit stale-data rule ('a past quote or rejection does not establish current access'), which is real when-to-use guidance. The gap is that it never contrasts with read_billing, a sibling that also surfaces price/payer/credits, so an agent must infer which of the two to pick for a pure billing question.

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

All ChatCut toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources