workspaces.billing.delegated_spend_grants.list
GET /v1/workspaces/:slug/billing/accounts/:accountId/delegated-spend-grants
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| pathParams | No |
GET /v1/workspaces/:slug/billing/accounts/:accountId/delegated-spend-grants
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| pathParams | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No behavioral traits are disclosed. There are no annotations, and the description does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination, leaving the agent without critical usage information.
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 extremely concise but at the expense of necessary detail. It is not structured to provide useful information beyond the tool name.
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?
Given the complexity of three nested object parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete, offering no context for proper invocation.
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?
The input schema has three generic object properties with zero description coverage. The description adds no meaning to the parameters, not even explaining the path parameters visible in the HTTP path.
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 only provides the HTTP path, which implicitly indicates a list operation but lacks an explicit statement of what the tool does. The name and path suggest listing delegated spend grants, but the purpose is not clearly articulated.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., create, revoke). The description omits any context about use cases or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
All 43 tools are clearly disambiguated by a hierarchical dot-separated naming scheme (e.g., workspaces.billing.accounts.create). Each tool targets a unique combination of resource and action, with no apparent overlap or ambiguity.
The naming follows a consistent <domain>.<subdomain>.<action> pattern, with actions as verbs (create, list, revoke, etc.). The use of underscores within the final component is uniform, making the pattern predictable across all tools.
At 43 tools, the server covers a broad scope (contracts, billing, workspaces, tasks, etc.), which justifies the high count. However, it is slightly above the typical well-scoped range of 3-15, risking overwhelm.
The tool set covers many operations for billing, tasks, and workspace management, but lacks fundamental create/update/delete for some core resources (e.g., no workspace.create or instruments.delete). Agents may encounter dead ends.