Query official workspace product usage between Unix millisecond timestamps to analyze consumption by product, model, voice, user, currency, or request. Requires workspace permissions.
Query official workspace product usage between Unix millisecond timestamps. The endpoint may require workspace permissions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_time | Yes | ||
| group_by | No | ||
| start_time | Yes | ||
| interval_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that workspace permissions may be needed — but says nothing about whether the call is read-only, whether results are aggregated or paginated, rate limits, or what a response looks like.
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?
Two compact sentences with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. The phrase 'official workspace product usage' is slightly loaded with unexplained qualifiers, but overall the text is appropriately sized.
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?
This is a multi-parameter aggregation/reporting tool with no output schema and no annotations. An agent still cannot tell what the report contains, how group_by and interval_seconds shape the result, or how this differs from get_usage_report. The definition is under-specified relative to the tool's complexity.
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%, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for the two required params by specifying Unix milliseconds as the unit — information the schema's bare integer ranges do not convey. However, group_by (the enum-driven aggregation control) and interval_seconds (default 86400) get no explanation at all, so half the parameters remain opaque.
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?
Uses a specific verb and resource ('Query official workspace product usage') plus a scope qualifier ('between Unix millisecond timestamps'). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the similarly named sibling get_usage_report or from get_budget_status, leaving ambiguity about which usage tool to pick.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given beyond a bare time-range scoping. The presence of get_usage_report in the sibling list makes the absence of an explicit 'use this instead of X when...' statement a real gap. A user-level permission caveat is mentioned but framed as uncertain ('may require').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.