Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ClockNext MCP Server

ClockNext MCP Server

Official
by Clocknext-Inc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

ClockNext: get customer balances

clocknext_get_customer_balances
Read-only

Fetch a customer's current wallet, credit, outcome, and unit balances to confirm entitlements after purchases or test signal drawdowns.

Instructions

Fetch a customer's current wallet / credit / outcome / unit balances. Use it to confirm a purchase granted the expected entitlements, or that a test signal drew the balance down as expected.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "clocknext_get_customer_balances"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe ClockNext customer id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true; description adds that it returns current balances across wallet/credit/outcome/unit and frames read-only verification scenarios. No contradiction with annotations, and the added domain context is useful.

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 concise sentences; first states action and object, second gives practical use cases. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description covers what data is returned, why to use it, and read-only nature; annotations cover safety. No output schema is necessary because the description names the balance categories.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with a single 'id' parameter described as 'The ClockNext customer id.' Description doesn't add parameter-level detail, but schema is sufficient; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies resource 'customer's current wallet / credit / outcome / unit balances.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like clocknext_get_customer_usage or clocknext_get_customer_plan by specifying balance data.

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?

States explicit use cases: confirming a purchase granted expected entitlements, and verifying a test signal drew down balances. This gives clear context for when to invoke, though it doesn't mention exclusions or alternative tools.

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