Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AdaptOrch MCP

AdaptOrch MCP

by dmae97
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

adaptorch_usage

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the calling tenant's current usage window, including plan level, period, used and remaining quota, and usage percentage; the tenant is resolved server-side from the API key.

Instructions

Return the calling tenant's current usage window: plan level, period, used, limit, remaining, and usage percentage. The tenant is resolved server-side from the configured API key.

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": "adaptorch_usage"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld. The description adds genuinely new context: the tenant is resolved server-side from the configured API key, which tells the agent no tenant identifier is needed and that results are scoped to the credential's owner. It stops short of stating caching/freshness or auth failure behavior.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The return contents are front-loaded and the scoping rule follows as supporting context.

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 compensates by listing the returned fields (plan, period, used, limit, remaining, percentage), and the zero-param contract plus tenant resolution is fully covered. Minor gap: it doesn't clarify whether 'period' is a calendar window or billing cycle, or how stale the usage data may be.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description usefully explains the implicit input — the tenant comes from the server-side API key rather than any argument — which prevents an agent from searching for a tenant parameter.

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 (return) and resource (the calling tenant's current usage window) and enumerates the exact fields returned, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like adaptorch_server_metrics or adaptorch_plan_catalog without opening any schema.

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 phrase 'current usage window' implies the use case (checking quota/consumption for the authenticated tenant), but the description never says when to prefer this over adaptorch_server_metrics or adaptorch_plan_catalog, nor does it state any exclusions.

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