List recent Tripo tasks and the credits each consumed, using limit/offset to page through usage records.
List recent Tripo tasks with the credits each one consumed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many records to return (Tripo's default is 50) | |
| offset | No | How many newest records to skip |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| records | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Input schema / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "limit": {
+ "description": "How many records to return (Tripo's default is 50)",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "offset": {
+ "description": "How many newest records to skip",
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+}Output schema / properties / records / items / properties / createdAtRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / properties / records / items / properties / created_atAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / records / items / properties / creditsConsumedRemoved value: -{
- "type": "number"
-}Output schema / properties / records / items / properties / credits_consumedAdded value: +{
+ "type": "number"
+}Output schema / properties / records / items / properties / statusAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / records / items / properties / taskIdRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / properties / records / items / properties / task_idAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / records / items / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "taskId",
- "creditsConsumed"
-]New value: +[
+ "task_id",
+ "credits_consumed"
+]v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output includes per-task credit consumption, which is useful context, but says nothing about refresh cadence, rate limits, or whether 'recent' has a fixed window.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the resource and the distinguishing payload. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter read tool and contains no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation from get_tasks/get_balance, but for a simple paginated listing the description is otherwise sufficient to call the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both limit and offset are already documented in the schema with their meaning and default. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as maximum page size or how offset interacts with 'recent', so it sits at the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('recent Tripo tasks') and adds a distinguishing scope ('with the credits each one consumed'), which separates it from a plain task listing. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings such as get_tasks or get_balance, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it is for inspecting per-task credit consumption, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives like get_tasks or get_balance. 'List recent tasks with credits' is enough to guess intent but not to choose confidently.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.