usageCheck current-month web-extraction usage, provider units, estimated provider spend, estimated customer charge, and remaining call and spending limits for the authenticated AgentMart account. Calibration calls are excluded. Read-only.
| 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?
Annotations already supply readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context that usage is current-month, scoped to the authenticated account, and that calibration calls are excluded, but it does not go deeper into rate limits or response behavior.
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 a single, well-structured sentence with the key resource and time scope front-loaded, followed by a compact list of returned values and a concise exclusion note. Every phrase earns its place.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only usage check, the description covers the main return values and account scope. It does not specify response format or explicitly route to billing_status, but those are minor gaps for a tool this simple.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. No parameter-specific semantics are needed, and the description does not try to invent any.
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 identifies a specific action ('Check') and resource ('current-month web-extraction usage'), and enumerates the returned data. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like billing_status, so it stops short of a 5.
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 intended use case (checking current-month usage and remaining limits) is implied clearly, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over billing_status or other siblings, and no exclusions are stated.
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 distinct actions: billing status, checkout creation, execution, usage, and calibration are clearly separated. The main ambiguity is between quote and recommend, which both address procurement/vendor decisions, though their descriptions clarify different outputs.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: billing_status and usage are noun phrases, create_billing_portal and create_checkout use verb_object, while execute, quote, recommend, and calibrate are bare verbs. The names are readable but stylistically mixed.
Eight tools is a well-scoped count for a procurement-focused server covering both web-extraction operations and subscription billing. Each tool maps to a distinct functional need without redundancy.
The extraction procurement lifecycle is well covered with quote, calibrate, execute, usage, and recommend, and billing has status, checkout, and portal access. The main gap is no explicit cancel/update subscription tool, though the billing portal likely covers that indirectly.