Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Petra Security MCP Server

Petra Security MCP Server

by WYRE-AI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

petra_get_usage

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve an organization-wide Petra billing snapshot by tenant, including service, billable status, licensed and billable users, proration, first billable date, and totals for invoice reconciliation.

Instructions

Get the whole-organization Petra billing snapshot in one call: for every tenant, the service (Monitoring or Autopsy), billableStatus (Trial, Active, NFR, Deleted), totalLicensedUsers, billableUsersThisMonth, proratingPercentageThisMonth and firstBillableDate, plus totals across the returned tenants. Use for invoice reconciliation against the PSA.

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": "petra_get_usage"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asOfNoUsage as of this date (YYYY-MM-DD). Defaults to today.
includePausedNoInclude paused tenants. Defaults to true. Set false so paused tenants do not inflate counts.
billableStatusNoOnly return tenants with this billable status (filtered locally).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: aggregation granularity (per tenant plus totals across returned tenants) and the fact that totals follow the filtered set. It omits permissions or data-freshness details, but for a read-only snapshot tool this is solid added value.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then the returned-fields list, then the usage sentence. The field enumeration is long but pays for itself because there is no output schema. Slight redundancy in restating the billableStatus enum values is the only waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and discharges it well by naming each per-tenant field and the presence of totals. It also clarifies that totals are "across the returned tenants," resolving the main ambiguity once the local billableStatus filter is applied. Nothing critical is missing for a read-only, zero-required-parameter snapshot call.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the asOf format and the includePaused default. The description repeats the billableStatus enum values but adds no new meaning about how asOf or includePaused affect results, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get the whole-organization Petra billing snapshot") and enumerates exactly what comes back per tenant plus org totals. The "whole-organization ... in one call" framing implicitly distinguishes it from the per-user sibling petra_list_billable_users, but no sibling is named explicitly, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Gives one concrete use case ("Use for invoice reconciliation against the PSA") but never states when not to use it, nor routes the agent to petra_list_billable_users or petra_list_tenants for narrower queries. A usage cue exists, but the selection logic between aggregation and list tools is left to inference.

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