Billing state of the authenticated account: current tier, whether payments are live, the subscription (plan, interval, price in USD cents, status, current period end, cancel-at-period-end), the card on file (brand, last4, expiry — never the number) and any founding-pricing reservation. Read-only; plan changes happen in the web console.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It openly states the operation is read-only, that plan modifications are not performed here, and that the card number is never returned. It does not describe error conditions or authentication requirements, but for a zero-parameter read-only status tool this is strong disclosure.
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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then itemizes the relevant fields without waste. Every clause adds useful information, and it avoids repeating the tool name or schema details.
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?
Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a thorough inventory of what the tool returns and clarifies its read-only scope. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention response format quirks or error behavior for full completeness.
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 tool has no parameters, so the empty input schema fully defines the interface. The description adds value by explaining what the returned state represents, but no parameter-level guidance is needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.
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 clearly states that the tool returns the billing state of the authenticated account and enumerates the specific data included, such as tier, subscription, card on file, and pricing reservation. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but the meaning is unambiguous and it distinguishes itself from mutation-oriented billing tools.
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 description makes the read-only nature explicit and notes that plan changes happen in the web console, which tells the agent when not to use this tool. It does not name sibling tools like buy_pack or list_plans as alternatives, but the context is clear enough for selecting this tool for billing status queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.