intentweave-mcp

estimate_cost

Estimate run cost before campaign launch (model-based estimate, not billable).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "intent": "<intent>",
      "vertical": "<vertical>"
    },
    "name": "estimate_cost"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No
`intent`	Yes
`vertical`	Yes
`access_token`	No
`tenant_api_key`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedApr 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the estimate is model-based and not billable, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether it modifies state, requires specific authentication, or what happens if inputs are invalid, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 sentence with no filler, immediately stating the tool's purpose and a key behavioral caveat. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It does not explain parameter relationships, required inputs, or how the output schema is populated, so it falls short of complete guidance.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The description provides no information about the parameters 'intent', 'vertical', 'count', 'access_token', or 'tenant_api_key'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description completely fails to compensate, making it difficult for an agent to correctly populate these fields.

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 uses the specific verb 'Estimate' with the object 'run cost' and specifies the timing 'before campaign launch', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like run_campaign. It also notes it's a model-based estimate and not billable, reinforcing the purpose.

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 clearly states the context 'before campaign launch', indicating when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, which would have earned a 5.

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

All intentweave-mcp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?