Skip to main content
Glama

check_budget_status

Query tenant and workflow token or USD budget utilization, remaining allowance, and 80% soft-cap tier downgrade state to monitor cost limits before routing AI steps.

Instructions

Query tenant and workflow token/USD budget utilization, remaining allowance, and 80% soft-cap tier downgrade state.

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": "check_budget_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tenant_idNodefault-tenant
workflow_idNodefault-workflow

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation and discloses the notable domain concept of an 80% soft-cap tier downgrade state, but never states whether the tier state is purely informational or tied to enforcement, nor what the response contains or whether permissions are required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the list of returned quantities is dense but readable. 'Soft-cap tier downgrade state' is internal jargon that costs some clarity without adding much length.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the broad subject matter but leaves the semantics of the soft-cap downgrade concept and the scoping behavior of the IDs unexplained. Adequate as a minimum-viable definition, not sufficient for confident invocation.

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 coverage is 0% for two parameters, and the description does not mention tenant_id or workflow_id at all. It is unclear whether the identifiers scope the query additively (tenant AND workflow) or which takes precedence, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Query') and enumerates the exact resources returned: token/USD budget utilization, remaining allowance, and 80% soft-cap tier downgrade state. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like synapse_rate_limit_status, though it never names an alternative to sharpen the distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus the rate-limit or routing siblings, no preconditions, and no exclusions. The only usage signal is the implicit 'query' framing, leaving the agent to infer timing.

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