Reports AI request counts and budget consumption for a rolling 7-, 30-, or 90-day window; requires an owner/admin API key to access account usage data.
AI usage and budget report for the account. Returns request counts and budget consumption over a rolling window. Requires an owner/admin API key — other roles get 403.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| range | No | Reporting window in days; one of 7, 30, or 90 (default 30). Other values fall back to 30. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key operational fact: an owner/admin API key is required and other roles receive a 403. It also reveals the rolling-window semantics of the report. It stops short of stating rate limits, cost of the call itself, or whether the data is cached/delayed.
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?
Three short sentences: what it is, what it returns, what it needs. Zero filler and the access constraint is placed where it will be read before calling.
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?
For a one-parameter read-only report with no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned content, window semantics, and auth failure mode — enough to call it correctly. Missing only response shape detail and pagination/limit notes.
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 coverage is 100% — the only parameter (range enum 7/30/90 with a documented 30 fallback) is fully described in the schema. The description's 'rolling window' phrase adds only mild framing beyond that, so the baseline 3 is right.
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?
States a specific resource and verb: an AI usage and budget report for the account, returning request counts and budget consumption. That contrasts well with the reporting/dashboard siblings (conduyt_dashboard, conduyt_get_user_stats), though it doesn't name any sibling explicitly.
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?
Use is implied (check AI request volume or remaining budget) but never stated as a trigger, and no alternatives or exclusions are offered. An agent can infer when it fits, but nothing directs it away from overlapping reporting tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.