Skip to main content
Glama

credits.get_balance

Get the credit balance of the project's owner, and what a render costs, in milli-credits (1000 = 1 credit). Check this before starting a render if the balance may be low.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "credits.get_balance"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does well on scope and output units by disclosing that the result includes both the owner's balance and the render cost. It says nothing, however, about permissions or whether the balance is owner-wide or project-specific when the caller has multiple projects.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The unit definition is placed inline with the resource it qualifies, and the actionable precondition is front-loaded in the second sentence.

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

Completeness4/5

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

A simple single-parameter read with no output schema, and the description covers what is returned, in what unit, and when to care. The only real gap is the unexplained projectId, which the tool relies on the caller to interpret.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The single parameter has zero schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'of the project's owner' implies that projectId selects the project whose owner's balance is resolved, which is a useful hint, but it never states that projectId is the input or what it identifies.

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 plus two concrete resources: the project owner's credit balance and the cost of a render. It also defines the unit (milli-credits, 1000 = 1 credit), which removes the main ambiguity an agent would have. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling credits.list_history, which lists transactions rather than reporting a current balance.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition: call this before starting a render if the balance may be low. That is real when-to-use guidance rather than an implied usage. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when-not to call it, which keeps it out of the top score.

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.