Preview the scrubbed cost records that analyze_costs would upload. Audit exactly what data would be sent without uploading anything or needing a key.
Show exactly what analyze_costs WOULD upload — the scrubbed records, nothing else. Sends nothing; needs no key. This is the audit step.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| until | No | ||
| apilog | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing two key behaviors: it sends nothing and requires no key. It also scopes the result to 'the scrubbed records, nothing else.' It does not mention default limits or filtering behavior, but the output schema covers the return shape.
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?
The description is three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, immediately states the safety-relevant behavior, and closes with the tool's role. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
The tool has no annotations and no parameter descriptions in the schema, so the parameter semantics gap is significant. The description covers purpose and safety well but leaves the agent unable to correctly populate apilog or understand how since/until/limit shape the output. The presence of an output schema only partially compensates.
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 0% and the description does not explain any of the four parameters: limit, since, until, and apilog. While 'since' and 'until' are inferable as date bounds, 'apilog' remains opaque and there is no detail about how limit or the time filters affect the preview. The description only indirectly suggests these mirror analyze_costs.
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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and a precise object ('what analyze_costs WOULD upload — the scrubbed records, nothing else'). It clearly differentiates this preview tool from the actual upload tool, analyze_costs, and reinforces the purpose by calling it 'the audit step.'
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?
The description names analyze_costs as the related upload action, states that this tool sends nothing and needs no key, and labels itself as the audit step. This makes the intended pre-upload verification use case reasonably clear, though it does not explicitly say 'use this before analyze_costs' or list exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.