Skip to main content
Glama
LuciferForge

agent-safety-mcp

by LuciferForge
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

cost_guard_status

Monitor API budget usage by checking remaining funds, percentage spent, and detailed call information to prevent overspending.

Instructions

Check current budget spend — how much is left, percentage used, call details.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • src/agent_safety_mcp/server.py:124-127 (handler)
    The handler for the cost_guard_status tool, which returns the status from the guard object.
    @mcp.tool()
def cost_guard_status() -> dict:
    """Check current budget spend — how much is left, percentage used, call details."""
    return _get_guard().status()

Tool Definition Quality

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It partially compensates by disclosing the return content (budget remaining, percentage used, call details), which helps since there is no output schema. However, it lacks disclosure of safety properties (read-only vs. mutation), rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. The em-dash efficiently separates the action from the return value details. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately compensates by verbally describing the output content. It successfully communicates what the tool does and returns without excess verbosity.

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 has zero parameters, which establishes a baseline score of 4 per the scoring guidelines. No parameter description is needed or provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('budget spend') and clarifies what information is returned ('how much is left, percentage used, call details'). However, it fails to differentiate from the sibling tool 'cost_guard_check', which has a nearly synonymous name.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'cost_guard_check' or 'cost_guard_record'. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions mentioned.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/LuciferForge/agent-safety-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server