Get a 7-day LLM spend digest broken down by department and provider
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | API key for the request | |
| provider | No | Filter by provider name (optional) | |
| department | No | Filter by department name (optional) |
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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation through the verb 'Get' and describes the output as a digest broken down by department and provider, but it does not explicitly mention side-effects, authentication specifics, or any additional behavioral nuances. This is adequate but not rich.
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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and outcome. Every word contributes value, and there is no unnecessary verbosity or repetition.
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 the tool's simplicity (no output schema, all parameters optional, no nested objects), the description provides a complete enough picture: it specifies the time window (7-day), the content (LLM spend digest), and the breakdown dimensions. It does not detail the exact response format, but for this straightforward read tool, the description is sufficient.
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 input schema provides 100% coverage for all three parameters (api_key, provider, department) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds context by mentioning 'broken down by department and provider', which helps map the filters to the digest breakdown, but this is minimal beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 the tool's purpose: to 'Get a 7-day LLM spend digest broken down by department and provider'. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies both the resource ('LLM spend digest') and the breakdown dimensions, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like department_report which likely focuses on a single department.
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 implies a clear context for use: when a weekly (7-day) digest of LLM spend is needed. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, the context is sufficiently clear given the sibling tool names, and the optional filters suggest flexible usage for provider or department-specific views.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: budgets, departments, alerts, providers, and reports. No overlapping purposes.
All tool names follow consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: create_budget, department_report, get_budget, etc.
Six tools cover the core functionality of budget planning without being too many or too few.
Covers creation, retrieval, alerts, providers, and reports. Missing update/delete for budgets, but core workflows are supported.