Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@yawlabs/lemonsqueezy-mcp

@yawlabs/lemonsqueezy-mcp

by YawLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ls_get_usage_record

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific usage record by its ID to view quantity and action type. Pass the usage record ID and optionally include related resources.

Instructions

Get a specific usage record by ID, including quantity and action type.

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": {
      "usageRecordId": "<usageRecordId>"
    },
    "name": "ls_get_usage_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
includeNoComma-separated related resources to include (e.g. 'subscription-item')
usageRecordIdYesThe usage record ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.10.10

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds 'including quantity and action type' but does not disclose error behavior, permissions, or rate limits. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information, no redundant words. Every element 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?

For a simple read operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It could mention the 'include' parameter's effect, but schema already explains it.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond confirming 'by ID' for usageRecordId, which is already in the schema.

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 clearly states the action (get), resource (usage record), and scope (by ID), with specifics (including quantity and action type) that distinguish it from sibling tools like ls_list_usage_records.

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 implies usage for retrieving a single record by ID but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ls_list_usage_records or ls_create_usage_record.

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