Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
monacloud-mcp

monacloud-mcp

Official
by mona-software
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Mở MONA Cloud Console

cloud_open_console
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a console URL to view invoices or manage your account. For wallet top-ups, use cloud_topup instead (QR in terminal).

Instructions

Trả URL console khi người dùng muốn tự xem hoá đơn hoặc quản lý tài khoản. Nạp ví KHÔNG cần console: dùng cloud_topup (QR in trong terminal).

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_open_console"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.11.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description confirms it is a URL-returning read but adds nothing beyond the annotations (no auth requirements, no rate limits, no mention of the URL's persistence/expiry). A 3 is appropriate given the low bar set by annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, front-loading the core purpose (return the console URL) before the routing caveat about cloud_topup. Every sentence earns its place with zero filler.

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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety/idempotency profile, the description supplies everything needed: what it returns, when to call it, and which sibling handles the adjacent top-up case.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. No parameter-related detail is missing.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb+resource: returns the console URL so the user can view invoices or manage their account. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling cloud_topup by explicitly saying top-up does not need the console. An agent can identify its role without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit when-to-use trigger (user wants to self-view invoices or manage account) and an explicit when-not with an alternative: top-up should use cloud_topup with the terminal QR instead. This is textbook routing guidance to a sibling.

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