Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Metrx MCP Server

Metrx MCP Server

by metrxbots
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get Upgrade Justification

metrx_get_upgrade_justification
Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate an ROI report that analyzes current usage and optimization potential to justify paying for Metrx and recommend the appropriate Verify or Platform plan.

Instructions

Generate an ROI report explaining why paying for Metrx makes sense based on current usage. Analyzes usage and 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). Legacy Lite/Pro tiers are retired and never recommended. Requires an API key with the 'read' scope.

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": "metrx_get_upgrade_justification"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
period_daysNoNumber of days to analyze for upgrade justification (default: 30)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the read-scope API key requirement and the product policy (Verify is pay-per-verdict, Platform is priced to managed LLM spend, Lite/Pro retired). It stops short of describing report format or how 'optimization potential' is computed.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the whole thing is a compact paragraph. Some sales-flavored phrasing ('no verdict, no charge', 'talk to us') is less useful to an agent than a crisp statement of behavior, but it does not obscure the function.

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 one optional parameter, full annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what is analyzed, what is recommended, the auth requirement, and tier retirement policy. Only the report's structure and any cost/latency implications are left implicit, which is acceptable here.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including default and min/max, so the schema carries the semantics. The description never mentions period_days, so it adds nothing beyond the structured field—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 definition opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate an ROI report' based on current usage, and it names the two products it recommends. It is clear what the tool produces, but it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling metrx_get_upgrade_business_case, leaving some ambiguity about which 'upgrade' report to call.

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?

Usage is implied by the goal ('explaining why paying for Metrx makes sense'), and the description usefully states that Legacy Lite/Pro tiers are never recommended. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternative routing against near-neighbors like get_upgrade_business_case or generate_roi_audit.

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