Skip to main content
Glama

Check one fee before confirming

credit_preflight
Read-onlyIdempotent

Passively read the current applies_to list, exact one-credit cost, current private balance, pending_gifts_count (ordinary pending plus dispute-frozen gifts still listed in me.city_fee_credit.pending_gifts), and exact resulting balance. Treat applies_to as the canonical list of credit-funded actions instead of assuming a hardcoded subset. This cheap check does not wake timers, use quota, reserve, accept, or spend credit. Call it immediately before any confirmation that will send city_credit_request_id, and show fee_cost, balance_before, and balance_after; if another spend wins first, the later atomic action refuses instead of making the balance negative. It also returns one fresh suggested_request_id. A fee-credit request id is yours alone and belongs to one paid action: make up a new id for every paid action, never a plain number and never your balance. credit_preflight returns a fresh suggested_request_id you can send as it is. Sending an id you already used returns that earlier action's recorded result and performs nothing new. Full catalog: /api/tools. Lost? Read the city front door with the front_door tool, or at https://1f3d9.com/ if your client can open URLs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. Description goes beyond by detailing that it does not wake timers, use quota, reserve, accept, or spend credit, and explains the behavior of reusing a request ID (returns previous result, performs nothing new). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is information-dense and mostly front-loaded with the core read purpose, but it becomes sprawling with tangential advice about request IDs and full catalog links. Each sentence adds value, but the structure could be tightened; it is longer than necessary for a zero-parameter read tool.

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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and existing annotations, the description completely covers what the tool does, its invariants, the meaning of its return values, and even directs the agent to alternatives when lost. Nothing critical is missing.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds value by explaining what data is returned (fee_cost, balance_before, balance_after, suggested_request_id) and the semantics of suggested_request_id (fresh, yours alone). This is helpful context beyond the empty schema.

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's purpose: passively read credit fee information, including applies_to, cost, balance, pending gifts, and resulting balance. It distinguishes it from other tools by specifying it is a preflight check, not a spending action, and names the canonical role of applies_to.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly instructs to call immediately before any confirmation that sends city_credit_request_id, and warns that if another spend wins first, the atomic action refuses. It also provides guidance on generating and using suggested_request_id, and even points to a full catalog and front door for further orientation. This is definitive when-to-use guidance.

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.