Skip to main content
Glama

What was asked of Knos

knos_usage
Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns how many times each Knos tool was called over MCP since this server started.

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": "knos_usage"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
recordNoa goal's measured token use (scripts/goal_usage.py); the operator only

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / record
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "a goal's measured token use (scripts/goal_usage.py); the operator only",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  2. Added

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral scope by stating that counts are per tool, over MCP, and measured since server start, but it does not discuss reset behavior, persistence, or response shape.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core return behavior and measurement scope immediately.

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?

For a simple read-only usage-statistics tool, the combination of annotations, a fully described optional parameter, and this description is nearly sufficient. The main remaining gap is that the return shape is not described in detail, which matters somewhat because there is no output schema.

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% for the single optional record parameter, so the schema already documents that parameter. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 uses a clear verb-resource pair: it returns call counts for each Knos tool over MCP since server start. The scope is specific enough for an agent to understand what the tool reports, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling tool.

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 states what the tool returns but provides no guidance on when to use it, when not to use it, or which sibling tool to choose instead. The purpose is inferable from the name and return statement, but there is no explicit usage context.

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.