Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
claude-cost-mcp

claude-cost-mcp

by firstshout
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

batch_savings

Calculate cost savings from using Batch API with 50% discount on input and output tokens for recurring, non-realtime workloads.

Instructions

Compute Batch API savings (50% off input+output) for a recurring workload. Use when work is async/non-realtime (≤24h SLA acceptable).

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": {
      "input_tokens": "<input_tokens>",
      "output_tokens": "<output_tokens>",
      "calls_per_day": "<calls_per_day>"
    },
    "name": "batch_savings"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
input_tokensYesInput tokens per call
output_tokensYesOutput tokens per call
calls_per_dayYesDaily call volume
modelNosonnet-4.5

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses discount percentage and use case, but lacks statements on side effects (read-only), permissions, or rate limits. Adequate for a simple calculator tool but minimal.

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 concise sentences front-load purpose and usage guidance. No redundancy or unnecessary text.

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?

Lacks description of output (e.g., returns annual savings, per-day savings). With no output schema, this gap leaves agents uncertain about return value. Otherwise provides sufficient context for a simple tool.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters described in schema). Description adds no parameter-specific details beyond schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it computes Batch API savings (50% off input+output) for recurring workloads. Differentiates from sibling tools like caching_breakeven and estimate_cost by specifying batch discount.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when work is async/non-realtime (≤24h SLA acceptable)', providing a clear condition. Does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is direct and helpful.

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