Skip to main content
Glama
brechanbech

xojo-mcp

by brechanbech
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

Estimate Request Cost

estimate_request_cost
Read-onlyIdempotent

Rates a planned request's likely token cost as LOW, MEDIUM or HIGH, with reasons and cheaper alternatives. Use before documentation-heavy or project-wide work to narrow scope.

Instructions

Rates a planned request's likely token cost as LOW, MEDIUM or HIGH, with the reasons and cheaper ways to do it. It is a keyword heuristic over the request text and the planned tool names, with no project or IDE access and no real token count, so treat it as a prompt to narrow scope rather than a measurement. Most useful before documentation-heavy or project-wide work.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYesThe task in plain words, e.g. 'Add a ListBox to Window1'. Longer text and words such as 'entire', 'refactor' or 'docs' raise the rating.
planned_toolsNoComma-separated tool names you expect to call, e.g. 'search_docs, get_code'. Only list_doc_topics, lookup_class, search_docs, get_code and set_code affect the rating.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.7.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / planned_tools / description
      Previous value: -"Comma-separated list of expected tool calls"New value: +"Comma-separated tool names you expect to call, e.g. 'search_docs, get_code'. Only list_doc_topics, lookup_class, search_docs, get_code and set_code affect the rating."
    • changedInput schema / properties / request / description
      Previous value: -"Natural language request (e.g. 'Add a ListBox to Window1')"New value: +"The task in plain words, e.g. 'Add a ListBox to Window1'. Longer text and words such as 'entire', 'refactor' or 'docs' raise the rating."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the implementation basis (keyword heuristic over request text and planned tool names), the absence of project/IDE access, and that no real token count is produced. That is exactly the caveat an agent needs to avoid over-trusting the rating.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what it returns, what it actually is (and is not), and when it is worth calling. The most decision-relevant caveat is placed before the usage hint.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema exists, yet the description fully specifies the return shape (rating plus reasons plus cheaper alternatives). Combined with the stated limitations and the fully documented two-parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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% and the schema already documents both parameters, including which tool names affect the rating and which words raise it. The description only reinforces that the heuristic reads request text and planned tool names, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource — rates a planned request's likely token cost — and names the exact output scale (LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH) plus the extra payload (reasons, cheaper alternatives). No sibling tool does anything comparable, so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

"Most useful before documentation-heavy or project-wide work" gives a clear triggering context, and "treat it as a prompt to narrow scope rather than a measurement" tells the agent how to act on the result. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming an alternative, but there is no obvious alternative among the siblings.

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