Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AI GIF Maker MCP server

AI GIF Maker MCP server

by hanshs474
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

AI GIF Maker credit balance

check_credits

Check remaining AI GIF Maker credits before generating a GIF; one GIF costs 1 credit, and this check is free.

Instructions

Credits left on the AI GIF Maker account behind AIGIFMAKER_API_KEY. One GIF costs 1 credit. Free to call.

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_credits"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description does useful work: it identifies which credential the balance belongs to, the credit-to-GIF exchange rate, and that the call itself costs nothing. It stops short of stating that the operation is strictly read-only, how a missing or invalid API key surfaces, or what the balance is returned as, which leaves gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the cost rate and the call cost. Every sentence adds information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 no-parameter, read-only balance check with no output schema, the description covers the account scope, the unit meaning of a credit, and the cost of calling. Only the return shape and failure behavior are unstated, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description correctly adds no parameter noise.

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?

"Credits left on the AI GIF Maker account behind AIGIFMAKER_API_KEY" names the specific resource (remaining credit balance) and the account scope, so an agent can distinguish it from generate_gif and check_gif. The verb is implicit rather than stated, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

"One GIF costs 1 credit" plus "Free to call" implies the sensible usage pattern (check balance before spending credits on generate_gif), but the description never states when to call this versus the siblings or that it is safe to call repeatedly. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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