Skip to main content
Glama

Usage Bill Reconstructor

Server Details

Recomputes a usage-based bill from a customer-supplied tariff (graduated per-meter tiers, optiona...

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL

Available Tools

1 tool
usage_bill_reconstructorA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Recomputes a usage-based bill from a customer-supplied tariff (graduated per-meter tiers, optional included allowances, optional fixed charges) and aggregated metered usage, using exact decimal arithmetic. Does not fetch or embed any vendor pricing; it only applies the rules the caller provides, and checks the result against an optional supplied invoice total. Price: 0.05 USDC per completed bounded job on Base.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
metersYes
currencyYes
fixed_chargesNo
invoice_totalNononnegative decimal, at most minor_unit_digits fractional digits; never rounded
minor_unit_digitsYes

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, and destructive=false; the description adds valuable behavioral context: it uses exact decimal arithmetic, does not fetch vendor pricing, and mentions the price per completed bounded job. It does not detail edge cases like rounding failures or error behavior, but the key non-obvious traits are disclosed.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action, then the critical exclusion, then pricing. It earns its place, though the pricing sentence could be considered slightly tangential to invocation correctness.

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 computation tool with no output schema, the description communicates the core contract: input is tariff + usage, output is a recomputed bill, and optional invoice comparison. It lacks explicit statement of return format or failure conditions, but given the detailed input schema and annotations, this is a strong definition.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 20%, so the schema leaves most parameters underdocumented; the description mentions graduated tiers, included allowances, fixed charges, aggregated usage, and optional invoice total, which maps to the parameters at a high level. It does not add details like decimal limits or the meaning of `up_to: null`, but it gives enough conceptual grounding for an agent to understand the input shape.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states what the tool does: recompute a usage-based bill from customer-supplied tariff and metered usage, using exact decimal arithmetic. It also explicitly distinguishes itself by stating it does NOT fetch or embed vendor pricing, which prevents misuse.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains the tool applies only caller-provided rules and optionally checks against an invoice total, giving clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives because there are no siblings, but it conveys the boundary of responsibility well.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 1 tool update
    • First observedusage_bill_reconstructor

Frequently Asked Questions

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Provides electricity tariff queries and rate calculations for US utilities, enabling cost estimation and optimal charging schedules.
    1
    Apache 2.0
  • F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Enables exact residential electricity rates and itemized bills for Salt River Project, computed from filed tariffs with citations, via tools for listing plans, getting rates, and calculating bills.
    -
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Per-call billing and metering proxy for MCP tool servers. Providers set pricing via the open MCP Billing Spec (MIT), consumers pay through Stripe Connect with signed receipts and SLA monitoring.
    MIT
  • A
    license
    C
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Enables access to Usage and Billing APIs for managing accounts, products, meters, plans, and usage reporting. Supports operations like creating products/plans, reporting usage, and retrieving billing information.
    18
    MIT
Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusing it with another operation. The tool's purpose is clearly distinct by definition.

Naming Consistency4/5

The single name is clear and uses a consistent snake_case convention, so there is no internal inconsistency. It is a noun phrase rather than the conventional verb_noun action form, which is a minor deviation from typical tool-naming patterns.

Tool Count3/5

One tool for a focused reconstruction utility is understandable, but the surface still feels thin: there is no companion tool for tariff/usage preparation or output inspection. It is borderline but not an extreme mismatch.

Completeness5/5

Within its explicitly stated scope—applying caller-supplied tariff tiers, allowances, fixed charges, and optional invoice validation—the tool covers the full reconstruction operation. No obvious dead ends or missing operations are evident.

Resources