claude-usage-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Claude usage + forecast

get_usage

Retrieve current Claude usage for 5-hour, weekly, and weekly-Opus windows, including forecast and velocity recommendation.

Instructions

Current Claude subscription usage for every window (5-hour, weekly, weekly-Opus): utilization %, reset time, a forecast of where you'll land at reset, when you'd hit the limit at the current pace, and a velocity recommendation (0-120%; 100 = full speed lands exactly at the limit, <100 = throttle, >100 = headroom to spare). Reuses Claude Code's OAuth session; no API key needed.

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

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses authentication method (OAuth session reuse) and the data returned (utilization, forecast, etc.). It is a read-only retrieval, though not explicitly stated. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what schema alone provides.

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?

The description is a single sentence that packs a lot of information without being overly verbose. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core function. Slightly long but still concise given the detail.

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?

For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides comprehensive details about the returned data (utilization, forecast, limit, velocity) and authentication. It lacks mention of error conditions but is otherwise complete for typical usage.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info because none exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero parameters.

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 specifies exactly what the tool does: get current Claude subscription usage for every window, including utilization, reset time, forecast, limit hit time, and velocity recommendation. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_velocity' by detailing the broader scope beyond just velocity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states it reuses Claude Code's OAuth session and that no API key is needed, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'get_velocity'. The context is implied but not explicitly contrasted.

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

Deploy Server