Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Metrx MCP Server

Metrx MCP Server

by metrxbots
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get Upgrade Business Case

metrx_get_upgrade_business_case
Read-onlyIdempotent

Generates a personalized ROI business case from real usage data to quantify optimization potential, recommend Verify or Platform, and help agents build a clear upgrade proposal after a 402.

Instructions

Generate a personalized ROI business case for paying for Metrx. Uses real usage data to quantify optimization potential, then recommends Verify (a buyable per-verdict proof — no verdict, no charge) and Platform (priced to your managed LLM spend; talk to us). Ideal for agents that received a 402 and want a compelling proposal for their operator. Legacy Lite/Pro tiers are retired and never recommended. Returns structured data plus a report. Requires an API key with the 'read' scope.

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": {
      "current_tier": "<current_tier>"
    },
    "name": "metrx_get_upgrade_business_case"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agent_countNoNumber of active agents. If omitted, fetched from dashboard data.
current_tierYesCurrent subscription tier
monthly_spendNoKnown monthly LLM spend in cents. If omitted, fetched from dashboard data.
primary_use_caseNoPrimary use case for the agents (used to select relevant case study)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.5.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the description correctly adds value beyond them: it discloses the data source (real usage data, with dashboard fallback implied), the output shape (structured data plus a report), and an auth requirement ('API key with the read scope'). It does not mention cost, latency, or whether the case is persisted, leaving a small gap.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by method, output, use context, and auth. Most sentences earn their place, though the promotional parentheticals ('a buyable per-verdict proof — no verdict, no charge', 'priced to your managed LLM spend; talk to us') lean toward sales copy rather than agent-relevant guidance.

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 correctly states the return ('structured data plus a report') and covers the auth prerequisite and the 402 trigger scenario. Combined with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the relationship to sibling upgrade/ROI tools is unaddressed.

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%, so all four parameters including the two enums are already documented. The description adds only loose context ('personalized', 'uses real usage data') and does not explain how primary_use_case selects the case study or how omitted spend/agent counts are resolved beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a personalized ROI business case for paying for Metrx', and adds what it does internally (quantify optimization potential from real usage data) and what it emits (recommendations plus a report). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like metrx_get_upgrade_justification or metrx_generate_roi_audit, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Gives a clear triggering context — 'Ideal for agents that received a 402 and want a compelling proposal for their operator' — plus a content rule that legacy Lite/Pro tiers are retired and never recommended. It names no alternative tool or exclusion condition, so the agent must infer when to prefer this over the justification or ROI audit siblings.

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