Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Alephant MCP

Alephant MCP

Official
by AlephantAI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_daily_costs

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return daily AI spend totals for the billing cycle or custom periods (24h, 7d, 30d). Monitor cost trends to manage budgets.

Instructions

Returns daily AI spend for the selected period.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_daily_costs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
periodNoAggregation windowbilling_cycle

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., whether costs are grouped, currency, or pagination). Given the annotations cover the main safety aspects, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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?

Despite the tool being simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description does not detail the return format or structure of the daily costs. For a cost tool, knowing the breakdown (e.g., per model, per scope) would be valuable. The description is adequate but could be more complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the parameter 'period' has a clear description and enum. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is justified.

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?

The description clearly states the tool returns daily AI spend for a selected period. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('daily AI spend'), and the context ('selected period') is clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_cost_by_model and get_usage_summary.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_cost_by_model (which provides per-model breakdown) or get_usage_summary (which might aggregate differently). There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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