aifree

Check which free AI offers a profile can claim

check_eligibility

Read-only

Use when someone asks what free AI they qualify for given who they are, e.g. "I am a student in Vietnam with no credit card, what free AI can I get?". Same rules as the aifree.dev/unlock quiz: student and startup programs only when the profile says so, no-card drops offers that ask for a card, country drops offers recorded as other-countries-only (offers with no recorded region stay in and are counted in unrecordedRegionCount), building narrows by category. All parameters are optional; omitted ones mean not a student, no startup, anywhere, card OK, any category. Unknown values are ignored the same way. Returns verified rows first, then by USD value. totalUsd sums USD headline values of verified rows only (tokens, requests, images or minutes count as $0, no exchange rates); listed rows are public but not yet checked by a person. limit (default 20, max 50) only trims the returned list: total, verifiedCount and totalUsd cover every match. Each provider decides who qualifies; cite the offer url and the unlockUrl (the same result as a page).

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": "check_eligibility"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No
`noCard`	No	true = will not enter a payment card
`country`	No	ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code, e.g. "VN", "IN", "US"; unknown codes are ignored
`student`	No	true = enrolled student (adds student programs)
`building`	No	any (default), coding, api-credits (apps on LLM APIs), image, audio, video, assistant
`startupStage`	No	none (default), idea (no company yet), early (incorporated, pre-seed or bootstrapped), funded (raised a round); anything but none adds startup programs

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: documents default semantics for omitted params, that unknown values are ignored, how no-card and country rules drop or retain offers (with unrecordedRegionCount nuance), sort order, how totalUsd is computed (no exchange rates, non-USD units count as $0), that listed rows are unverified, and that limit only trims the list while aggregates cover all matches. It also tells the agent to cite url and unlockUrl.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the usage condition and example come first, then rules, then return semantics. Every clause carries information, though the single unbroken paragraph makes the return-value details harder to scan than they could be.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining ordering (verified first, then by USD value), what totalUsd sums and excludes, the meaning of verified vs listed rows, and the limit-vs-aggregate split. An agent has enough to call it and interpret results correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With schema coverage at 83% the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: omitted params mean 'not a student, no startup, anywhere, card OK, any category', unknown country codes are ignored, and limit's default (20) and max (50) are scoped to the returned list rather than the aggregates. That is behavior the schema alone does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: identifies which free AI offers a given profile qualifies for, and anchors it to the known aifree.dev/unlock quiz. An agent can immediately tell this is a profile-driven eligibility matcher, distinct from search/compare siblings.

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?

"Use when someone asks what free AI they qualify for given who they are" plus a concrete example gives a clear triggering condition. It does not explicitly name when to prefer a sibling like search_free_ai_offers or compare_offers, which is the only gap.

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

All aifree tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.