Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Lizard MCP

Lizard MCP

Official
by lizard-build
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get plan and billing status

billing_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check account plan, trial status, credits used, next charge, and unpaid invoice when a payment fails or a user asks about billing; returns a billing link for plan changes and payments.

Instructions

Use this when a tool fails with PAYMENT_REQUIRED, or the user asks about their plan, trial or bill. Returns the account's plan (none, pro, payg = old prepaid credits until November 1, 2026, enterprise), the Pro status (trialing, active, past_due, canceled), trial days and trial credits left, this month's credits used of the included $19 and the overage, the next charge, a pending cancel, an unpaid invoice link, and billingUrl. Pro is $19/month, taxes included, with $19 of credits each month. Starting Pro, paying and cancelling happen in the browser at billingUrl; give the user the link. With workspaceId, reads that workspace owner's plan.

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": "billing_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workspaceIdNoRead the plan of this workspace's owner instead of your own

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.2

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint/idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false, closed-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: mutations (starting Pro, paying, cancelling) must be done by the user in the browser at billingUrl, and the agent should hand over that link. It also explains the deprecated 'payg' value and the $19 pricing model, which no structured field conveys.

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?

The trigger condition is front-loaded, followed by return values, pricing, and the action handoff — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It is somewhat dense, particularly the long enumeration of returned fields inside one sentence, but every clause carries information an agent needs given there is no output schema.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so thoroughly: plan enum values, Pro status values, trial days/credits, monthly usage and overage, next charge, pending cancel, unpaid invoice link, and billingUrl. Combined with the annotation-covered safety profile and the explained workspaceId behavior, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 100% and the single optional workspaceId is already documented in the schema. The description's 'With workspaceId, reads that workspace owner's plan' restates that meaning without adding new syntax, defaults, or edge cases beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource (returns the account's plan and billing status) and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling billing_summary, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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?

Clear trigger conditions are given: use it when a tool fails with PAYMENT_REQUIRED, or when the user asks about plan, trial or bill. What's missing is the alternative — the sibling billing_summary is never mentioned, so there is no guidance on which of the two to choose.

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