Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
solanaprox-mcp

solanaprox-mcp

by solanaprox
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

get_activity

Review recent model usage, charged amounts, and credit balance for the configured account.

Instructions

Show the configured account's recent usage (model, result, amount charged) and credits (GET /v1/account/activity). Free.

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": "get_activity"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavioral facts: it is a read ("Show"), it targets the configured account, and it is "Free" (no credit charge). However, it says nothing about how far back "recent" reaches, pagination, limits, or auth requirements — all of which matter for an activity-log call.

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?

A single sentence with the verb, the resource, the returned fields, the endpoint, and the cost note, all front-loaded. No filler.

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 zero-parameter read with no output schema, the description compensates well by naming the returned fields. The main remaining gap is the scope of "recent" (time window / result count), which an agent needs to interpret the response correctly.

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 applies; the phrase "the configured account's" usefully confirms that the account is implicit rather than a required argument. There is nothing further for the description to document.

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?

States a specific verb ("Show") and resource ("recent usage ... and credits") and enumerates the returned fields (model, result, amount charged), plus the underlying endpoint. It never explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearby sibling check_balance, so an agent must infer that this is history rather than current balance.

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?

Usage is only implied: "recent usage" suggests checking past activity. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to check_balance or deposit_info for balance/billing questions, which is the most likely confusion given the sibling set.

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