Kiro MCP Server

Kiro usage and credits

kiro_usage

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves Kiro plan usage, billing reset date, credit breakdowns, bonus/add-on credits, and overage status; optionally reports observed credits for a specific session.

Instructions

Plan usage from _kiro/account/getUsage, like /usage: plan name, billing cycle reset date, usage breakdowns (resource type, used, limit, percentage), bonus and add-on credits, and whether overages are enabled. With session_id, also the credits this server observed for that session's turns since it was attached. UNSUPPORTED_BY_KIRO errors still carry session_credits in their details.

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": "kiro_usage"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`session_id`	No	Kiro session id (sess_<uuid>).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`plan`	Yes
`breakdowns`	Yes
`reset_date`	Yes
`bonus_credits`	Yes
`add_on_credits`	Yes
`session_credits`	Yes
`overages_enabled`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the description only needs to add context — and it does: the upstream data source, the fact that session credits are locally observed 'since it was attached', and that UNSUPPORTED_BY_KIRO errors still return session_credits in their details. That error-path disclosure is genuinely useful information unavailable from annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary return payload and followed by the conditional behavior and error caveat. Dense but every clause carries information; only the '/usage' comparison is arguably superfluous for an agent that cannot type slash commands.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is correctly omitted, and the description still covers the source, the optional parameter's effect, and an important edge case in error responses. The only gap is relationship to neighboring tools, which matters in a 31-tool family.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a documented pattern for session_id, so the schema carries the syntax. The description still adds semantic value by explaining what supplying session_id changes in the response scope (credits for that session's turns since attachment), which is behavior the schema alone does not convey.

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?

The description names a specific resource and payload: plan name, billing cycle reset date, usage breakdowns, bonus/add-on credits, overage flag, sourced from _kiro/account/getUsage. It is clearly distinguishable from the session-oriented siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with kiro_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the one conditional usage pattern ('With session_id, also the credits this server observed'), which tells the agent when to pass the optional parameter. However, there is no guidance on when to call this versus kiro_status or other account/session tools, leaving the primary routing decision implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.