Check how many image generation credits remain on your account: one balance shared by your MCP calls and the logospell.com generate page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| remaining | Yes | Credits remaining on the API key. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "remaining": {
+ "description": "Credits remaining on the API key.",
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "remaining"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds useful context about the shared account balance, enhancing understanding without contradicting structured data.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the exact purpose with no wasted words. The description is both concise and structurally effective.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool with comprehensive annotations and an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It adds the key nuance of a shared balance, covering all contextual needs.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter description needed beyond the schema, which correctly shows an empty object.
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?
Description clearly states the tool checks remaining image generation credits, with specific verb 'Check' and resource 'credits'. The added detail about shared balance between MCP calls and the generate page distinguishes it from sibling generation tools.
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 context makes it obvious this is for verifying available credits before generation, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative comparisons are given. Since no sibling performs the same function, this is not a significant gap.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: generation is split by output type (single illustration vs. solid-color set vs. transparent set), and the remaining tools handle references, delivery editing, icon export, credit checking, and listing. The three generation tools are heavily cross-referenced with explicit guidance on when to use each, leaving no boundary ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (check_credits, create_reference, edit_image_set, export_icons, generate_illustration, list_recent_generations). The two set-generation variants differ by a descriptive adjective but still follow the same generate_*_set shape, so the naming pattern remains predictable.
Eight tools is well-scoped for an image generation service: three generation variants, one reference-upload helper, one delivery editor, one export tool, one credit checker, and one history/retrieval tool. Each tool serves a distinct workflow step without unnecessary redundancy.
The core lifecycle is well covered: generate (all three modes), upload references, edit delivered sets, export icons, check credits, and retrieve past generations. The only notable gap is that illustrations cannot be edited or re-delivered after generation, though the tool descriptions make this an explicit design constraint rather than an oversight.