Snapback

suggest_budget_recovery

Read-onlyIdempotent

Approaching a token/context/cost budget mid-run? Pass your counters and get the LEAST-DISRUPTIVE recovery ranked: truncate context | switch to a cheaper model | batch steps | wrap up — scored by speed gained, accuracy lost, cost saved. Turns budget_guard's 'you're at 94%' into 'here's what to do about it'. Free, no token, no LLM.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tokens_used`	No
`context_used`	No
`token_budget`	No
`cost_used_usd`	No
`context_window`	No
`recent_actions`	No
`cost_budget_usd`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 2, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "A JSON object (returned as text in result.content[0].text). Diagnosis tools return {matched, family, fix, confidence, source, action_class, auto_safe, gate}; other tools return their own JSON result.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds meaningful traits beyond them: free, no token spend, no LLM call, and that output is a ranked trade-off rather than a single answer. It does not describe ordering tie-breaks, but the additions are substantive.

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?

Front-loaded with the triggering condition and the ranked output format using compact enumeration. The marketing-style closer ('Turns budget_guard's...') earns its place as sibling routing, though the piece is slightly denser than needed.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description does convey the shape of the ranking. However, for a 7-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, the lack of per-parameter semantics leaves a real gap for correct invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description only gestures at 'your counters' via the phrase token/context/cost budget. It never clarifies the distinction between tokens_used and context_used, the units of the budgets, or what recent_actions should contain, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource (suggest budget recovery) and enumerates the exact output: four ranked recovery options scored by speed gained, accuracy lost, and cost saved. It also explicitly positions itself against the sibling budget_guard, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a schema.

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?

Triggers the tool with a clear condition (approaching a token/context/cost budget mid-run) and routes relative to budget_guard, which merely warns. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the mid-run budget context is unambiguous.

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

All Snapback tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.