Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
codexwatch

codexwatch

by psychofict
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

budget_status

Show each Codex budget cap and current usage, flagging whether spending, tokens, or plan windows are near or over limits.

Instructions

The user's codexwatch budgets (dollar, token or plan-window caps) with how much of each is used and whether it is near or over its limit.

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": "budget_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose the shape of what comes back (per-budget usage amount plus near/over-limit state), which implies a read-only report. It never explicitly states read-only behavior, what 'near' means as a threshold, or how the data is scoped to the calling user.

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 sentence with no filler, and the core subject (budgets with usage and limit state) is front-loaded. Slightly dense nested parenthetical, but every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no params, the description must describe the return payload, and it does so at a high level: a list of budgets, their consumption, and a near/over flag. It stops short of explaining the threshold for 'near', the units of plan-window caps, or ordering, which an agent would want for a status-reporting tool.

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 is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The schema itself is trivially complete.

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?

Names a specific resource (the user's codexwatch budgets, covering dollar, token or plan-window caps) and states what is reported about each (amount used and whether it is near or over its limit). An agent can tell this is a budget/limit-status read rather than a raw usage listing, though the phrasing is a noun clause with no explicit verb.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite four siblings (usage_summary, plan_limits, quota_forensics, daily) that plausibly overlap. The agent must infer from the name alone whether to pick this over plan_limits or usage_summary.

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