사용 중인 API 키의 계정 상태 — 남은 크레딧, 플랜, 충전 링크. 과금 도구를 길게 쓰기 전에 호출해, 작업 도중 잔액이 떨어지는 대신 미리 충전하세요. / Your account status for the API key in use — remaining credits, plan, and a top-up link. Call this before a long run of metered queries so you can purchase in advance instead of hitting an exhausted balance mid-task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining the top-up link purpose, which is not evident from the name alone. However, it does not detail response format, rate limits, or whether the tool makes network calls. Since there are no annotations, the description carries full burden but remains somewhat limited.
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 concise, with two sentences in the bilingual format (Korean/English), each serving a clear purpose: defining the tool and providing usage guidance. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information.
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?
Given that the tool takes no parameters and has no output schema, the description provides sufficient information for most use cases. However, it could have specified the format of the top-up link (e.g., whether it is a URL) or included a note about what constitutes 'metered queries' to prevent overcalling. Still, it is adequate.
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?
With no parameters, the schema is inherently complete proportionally. The description effectively communicates the scope—it retrieves account-level information—and does so without needing to explain parameter details.
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 function as retrieving account status (credits, plan, top-up link) for the API key. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_pricing and get_leaders by focusing on the user's own account and balance.
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 explicitly states when to use it—before long metered queries—and why (to avoid exhausting balance mid-task). This provides clear actionable guidance that is particularly relevant for billing-related tools.
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.
Most tools target clearly distinct resources (statutes, precedents, bar exam, documents, content, account), and cross-references in descriptions explicitly disambiguate similar actions like search vs lookup_statute vs lookup_precedent. A few close pairs exist (ask vs ask_expert, latest_content vs get_daily_content, bar_exam_search vs get_exam_answer), but each pair has clear differentiators.
The set predominantly follows snake_case verb_noun naming (get_account, lookup_statute, verify_citations, generate_document). Minor deviations like latest_content (no verb) and bar_exam_search (noun-first) break the pattern, but the overall convention is readable and predictable.
At 19 tools, the surface is on the heavier side but each tool addresses a distinct need across a broad legal domain (Q&A, research, document generation, bar exam corpus, content, account management). The count feels justified for the stated scope, though it approaches the upper boundary of reasonable.
The server covers the main legal workflows well: Q&A (ask, chat_leader), research (lookup_statute, lookup_precedent, search, verify_citations), document drafting (generate_document), and bar exam prep (bar_exam_search, get_exam_answer). Minor gaps exist, such as no browse/list-all endpoints for statutes or precedents and no way to manage generated documents, but agents can work around these.
