Usage And Billing MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get meter' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what data is returned (e.g., meter details, status), or any limitations like rate limits or error conditions. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise at two words, with zero wasted text. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get') and resource ('meter'), making it easy to parse. Every word serves a purpose, though it may be overly minimal for clarity.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely retrieves specific data. It doesn't explain what a 'meter' is in this context, what information is returned, or any behavioral aspects. For a read operation with one parameter, more context is needed to be fully helpful to an AI agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'meter_id' documented as a required string. The description 'Get meter' implies the parameter is used to identify a specific meter, but adds no semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or what constitutes a valid meter_id. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get meter' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies a verb ('Get') and resource ('meter'), but lacks any detail about what 'meter' represents or what information is retrieved. Compared to sibling tools like 'get_meters' (plural) or 'get_usage', it doesn't distinguish its specific scope or purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a meter_id, or differentiate it from similar tools like 'get_meters' (which likely lists multiple meters) or 'get_usage' (which might retrieve usage data). There's no explicit or implied context for usage.

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