Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
codexwatch

codexwatch

by psychofict
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

usage_summary

Summarize Codex token usage and estimated API-equivalent costs for a selected period, including totals, cache hit rate, and top models and projects.

Instructions

Codex token usage and its API-equivalent dollar value for a period: totals, cache hit rate, and the top models and projects. Dollar figures are estimates at OpenAI API prices; tokens of models with no published price are counted separately.

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": "usage_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
periodNotoday, the last 7 or 30 days, this calendar month, or all historytoday

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful trait: dollar figures are estimates at OpenAI API prices and unpriced models are counted separately. It does not say whether the call is read-only, whether it is expensive, or how large the output is, so the behavioral picture is partial.

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: the first front-loads what is returned, the second qualifies the pricing caveat. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only reporting tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description states the metric set and the pricing caveat, which is close to sufficient. Only the absence of guidance relative to sibling reporting tools keeps it short of full completeness.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single enum parameter already documents its accepted values. The description's "for a period" adds no syntax or semantics beyond that, so the 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?

"Codex token usage and its API-equivalent dollar value for a period" names a specific resource plus the concrete contents (totals, cache hit rate, top models and projects). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings such as daily, sessions, or budget_status, which also report usage-like data.

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 statement of when to choose this over daily, quota_forensics, budget_status, or plan_limits. The only usage signal is the implicit period scoping, leaving the agent to guess which summary tool fits a given question.

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