Report usage, cost, and revenue data for a specific account, principal, or session. Use filters like space or consumer to isolate metrics and gain clear financial or operational insights.
Report usage, cost and (for owners) revenue for an authorized principal, account-bounded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| space | No | ||
| consumer | No | ||
| sessionId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'authorized principal' and 'account-bounded', which hints at access scoping, but it does not describe what the response contains, what happens if the principal is unauthorized, or whether this is a read-only operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact sentence with no redundant phrasing, making it easy to parse. However, it is under-specified for a tool with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, so the brevity comes at the cost of useful detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and a large sibling set, the description is too incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. It defines the general purpose but omits input semantics, return shape, and usage boundaries relative to sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (space, consumer, sessionId). Since none of the parameters are described in the schema and the description offers no mapping, the agent has no semantic guidance for filling them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Report') and the resource ('usage, cost and revenue'), and it adds scope ('for an authorized principal, account-bounded'). It is specific enough to distinguish the tool from many siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast it with noetic.metrics or noetic.receipt.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a reporting context but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like noetic.metrics or noetic.query. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions stated, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.