Veqen: AI cost monitoring and protection

The organization

organization

action get (name, plans, your role, the Get started checklist), rename (name), set_track (track: coding, audit or sdk), audit_log (who changed what; paid plans), leave (you leave; your full keys stop working), delete_code (emails the owner a code) or delete (owners: confirm set to the exact name, and the challenge and the code the owner reads you from that email; can't be undone). Confirm before leave or delete.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "organization"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`code`	No
`name`	No
`track`	No
`action`	No	get
`confirm`	No
`challenge`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description directly contradicts the destructiveHint: false annotation by stating that delete 'can't be undone' and leave causes 'your full keys stop working'. This is a clear annotation contradiction, warranting the lowest score.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The entire description is one long, dense sentence with nested parentheses. It is information-dense but poorly structured for quick scanning; a bulleted list would improve readability without adding length.

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?

Given the output schema and 7-action tool, the description covers the core actions and critical parameter meanings (confirm, code, challenge). However, the annotation contradiction undermines behavioral clarity, and some action details (e.g., rename constraints, set_track effect) are left implicit.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning for confirm (exact name), code (from email), challenge (from email), and track (three values), but leaves the action parameter only enumerated and doesn't explain the name parameter's role in 'get' or 'rename' beyond listing it.

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 enumerates all seven actions with brief parenthetical details, making the tool's scope (organization management) clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like teams_and_people or access, but the action list is specific enough to distinguish it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies when to use each action (e.g., audit_log is for paid plans, leave stops keys from working, delete requires owner confirmation) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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

All Veqen: AI cost monitoring and protection tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?