Detailed spending analytics report. Returns total spent, category breakdown, top services with ROI, and optimization recommendations. Use to understand spending patterns and find inefficiencies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | Yes | Report period | |
| agent_id | Yes | Your agent identifier |
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?
Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what the tool returns in detail (total spent, category breakdown, top services with ROI, optimization recommendations), making its behavior transparent. It doesn't mention side effects or limitations, but given the read-only nature of a report, this is adequate.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Detailed spending analytics report'), and every word adds value. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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?
With only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. It doesn't specify return format (e.g., JSON vs table), but that is not explicitly required given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a detailed description of contents.
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 already describes both parameters (agent_id, period) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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: 'Detailed spending analytics report' and lists specific outputs (total spent, category breakdown, top services with ROI, optimization recommendations). This distinguishes it from siblings like check_spend, which likely provides a quicker/simpler spend check, and report_spend, which likely refers to submitting spend data.
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 provides a clear use case: 'Use to understand spending patterns and find inefficiencies.' This gives context for when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings. The guidance is sufficient for basic selection.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: check_spend is pre-spend approval, report_spend is post-spend recording, get_spending_report is analytics, register_agent is setup, health and list_tools are system maintenance. No overlap or ambiguity.
Five tools follow the verb_noun pattern (check_spend, report_spend, get_spending_report, list_tools, register_agent). The 'health' tool is a single noun, which is a minor deviation but common for status endpoints, so the naming remains predictable overall.
Six tools is well-scoped for a budget management server. Each tool covers a necessary function without redundancy, and the count is neither too sparse nor overwhelming.
The core budget lifecycle is covered: register_agent, check_spend, report_spend, and get_spending_report provide a complete spend management flow. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit delete/removal tool for agents (though register_agent upserts) and no category-level budget configuration, but these are workable.