Skip to main content
Glama

FreeToolHub

by io.github.cavan1977
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

plan_mcp_token_budget

Plan and attribute MCP token spend across agents, servers and workflows — something the protocol provides no native support for. Outputs per-dimension cost split and a quota plan.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workloadsYesJSON array of {name, callsPerDay, inputTokensPerCall, outputTokensPerCall, owner?}. Accepts a JSON array, or a JSON string containing one.
monthlyBudgetNoOptional monthly budget cap in USD for over/under comparison
inputPricePerMillionNoInput price per 1M tokens in USD (default 3)
outputPricePerMillionNoOutput price per 1M tokens in USD (default 15)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / workloads / description
      Previous value: -"JSON array of {name, callsPerDay, inputTokensPerCall, outputTokensPerCall, owner?}"New value: +"JSON array of {name, callsPerDay, inputTokensPerCall, outputTokensPerCall, owner?}. Accepts a JSON array, or a JSON string containing one."
    • changedInput schema / properties / workloads / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "array",
+  "object"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 only hints at the output ('per-dimension cost split and a quota plan') but does not state whether the tool has side effects, requires specific permissions, or operates purely in-memory. For a planning/calculation tool, this is a notable gap.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids fluff and is easy to parse. It could be slightly more informative, but it is concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the relationship to sibling tools, the expected input format beyond the schema, or any usage constraints. An agent would need additional context to invoke it confidently.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating the purpose; it does not elaborate on how parameters interact or provide examples. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema handles semantics.

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 states the tool's purpose: planning and attributing MCP token spend across agents, servers, and workflows. It uses a specific verb ('plan and attribute') and a clear resource ('MCP token spend'), and mentions the output. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like estimate_mcp_context_budget, but the focus on 'plan and attribute' is distinct enough to be clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., estimate_mcp_context_budget, plan_context_window_budget). The description lacks any mention of alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. An agent would have no basis to choose this over similar cost-planning tools.

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

All FreeToolHub 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