Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ZCode MCP Server

ZCode MCP Server

by Mnehmos
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

zcode_usage

Query token and activity statistics over a chosen period (7d, 30d, or all) to track usage trends.

Instructions

Token and activity analytics. Read-only.

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": {
      "action": "<action>",
      "range": "<range>"
    },
    "name": "zcode_usage"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rangeYes
actionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and 'Read-only' is the only trait disclosed. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, scope of accounting, or what the returned metrics represent, which is thin for a zero-annotation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The terseness is efficient but sits at the edge of under-specification.

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

Completeness2/5

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

A two-parameter, no-output-schema tool still needs its parameters explained and its read-only guarantee expanded, since there are no annotations to fall back on. The description leaves both the parameter semantics and the behavioral profile largely uncovered.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does not. The 'range' enum (all/7d/30d) and the fixed 'action=stats' are understandable from the schema, but the description adds no meaning about default behavior, timezone/accounting semantics of the ranges, or what the action selector implies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States the domain ('token and activity analytics') which tells an agent this is a usage-metrics tool, distinct from zcode_status or zcode_session. However, it gives no verb or concrete sense of what is returned (counts? breakdown by model? time series?), so the purpose is implied rather than specific.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all, nor any mention of alternatives among the many sibling analytics/status tools. An agent must guess whether this is the right tool for a given stats question.

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