Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Arsel MCP Server

Arsel MCP Server

Official
by Arsel-SA
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Get Usage

get-usage
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve this month's usage against your organization's plan limits for emails, SMS, WhatsApp, push, in-app messages, automation runs and contacts.

Instructions

Get this month's usage against the organization's plan limits: emails, SMS credits, WhatsApp, push and in-app messages, automation runs and contacts. The period is the UTC calendar month, not the billing cycle. A limit of null means the plan sets no limit. contacts is the current total, not a monthly count.

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-usage"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.2.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description is free to spend its words on semantics. It does that well by disclosing two non-obvious contract details: the UTC calendar-month window versus the billing cycle, and that a null limit means no limit rather than zero. It does not say what the response is keyed by or how the organization is determined, which is why it stops short of 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the scope and the metric list, then two disambiguation notes. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations and no sentence is filler.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the whole burden of shaping expectations about the response, and it does so at the level of field meaning (null limit, contacts as a snapshot) and coverage (emails, SMS, WhatsApp, push, in-app, automations, contacts). It stops short of describing the response shape, which leaves a small but real gap for a tool whose only output is data.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter gap to compensate for. The description instead clarifies return-value semantics (null limit, contacts being a current total), which is a bonus rather than a requirement here.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get this month's usage against the organization's plan limits') and enumerates the exact metric families covered. The account-level scope is unmistakable against a sibling set of single-entity getters like get-contact and get-email-campaign.

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?

It establishes the frame of reference clearly: usage is measured against plan limits for the UTC calendar month, explicitly not the billing cycle, which is the main interpretive trap an agent would fall into. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer or avoid this tool, but no sibling overlaps with it, so the guidance is sufficient without being spelled out.

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