Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
monacloud-mcp

monacloud-mcp

Official
by mona-software
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Đọc ngân sách MONA Cloud

cloud_budget_get
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve cloud budget limits and current usage for a billing period. Use it to monitor spending and check remaining budget before provisioning resources.

Instructions

Liệt kê giới hạn và mức đã dùng theo kỳ.

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": "cloud_budget_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.11.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'theo kỳ' (per-period) scoping detail; it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or what the period granularity defaults to.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the key scope ('theo kỳ') is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity edges toward under-specification rather than tight conciseness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a zero-parameter read tool with full annotations, the description is minimally adequate, but with no output schema it fails to describe what is returned (limit values, used amounts, currency, period granularity) or how the budget relates to cloud_budget_set. That leaves a real gap for an agent interpreting the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly does not need to explain any inputs. It adds no parameter confusion, though it also offers nothing further because there is nothing to document.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a verb and resource ('Liệt kê giới hạn và mức đã dùng theo kỳ' – list limits and used amounts per period), so the agent knows it retrieves budget limits and consumption. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings like cloud_usage or cloud_budget_set, and 'get' vs 'list' in the name versus the description creates mild ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the companion cloud_budget_set tool, and no exclusions relative to cloud_usage. The agent must infer from the name alone when this budget read is the right call versus its 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