Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Rubric Protocol MCP Server

Rubric Protocol MCP Server

by 0xsims
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

cost_estimate

Estimate monthly Rubric costs based on expected daily decision volume. No API key required.

Instructions

Estimate monthly Rubric cost from expected decision volume. No key required.

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": {
      "decisions_per_day": "<decisions_per_day>"
    },
    "name": "cost_estimate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
decisions_per_dayYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.2.4

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'No key required' is a genuinely useful auth disclosure, but nothing is said about whether this is a pure read-only lookup, whether the number is a quote vs. an authoritative price, whether tiers/minimums apply, or what the response contains.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded before the auth note, with zero filler. Nothing needs trimming.

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?

For a one-parameter tool this is close, but with no output schema the description should say roughly what comes back — a currency amount, whether it is monthly only, whether it includes add-ons. That missing return-value framing is the main completeness gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate. Saying 'expected decision volume' does add meaning — the value is a projected daily rate, not historical data — but the description never states how a daily figure is converted to a monthly one (30-day vs. business-day basis) or accepted value bounds.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('Estimate monthly Rubric cost') plus the driving input ('expected decision volume'), which is enough to separate it from the attest/verify/proof siblings at a glance. It stops short of explicitly naming itself as the pricing tool versus those attestation siblings, so not a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: you call it when you want to know monthly spend for a projected volume. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative for related questions such as actual (non-estimated) billed cost, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools