list_tools
List all available Harvey Budget tools with pricing and input requirements. Use this for discovery.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
zero-core-budget
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states what the tool lists, but does not explicitly declare it as read-only or describe the return format. The verb 'list' implies a safe, non-mutating operation, but more explicit disclosure would be beneficial.
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 two sentences with no fluff, front-loading the action and purpose. Every word contributes to understanding.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, content (pricing and input requirements), and context (discovery). It could mention return format explicitly, but it's largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially complete. The description correctly avoids parameter details and focuses on output content. This aligns with the baseline for 0-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all available Harvey Budget tools with pricing and input requirements, using the specific verb 'List'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling operational tools by positioning itself for discovery.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use this for discovery', giving a clear usage context. It does not name alternatives, but siblings are action-oriented, making it evident that this tool is for discovering available tools rather than performing budget operations.
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.
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
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.
Naming Consistency4/5
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.
Tool Count5/5
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.
Completeness4/5
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.