get_usage_stats
Return this account's total handoff count and the most recent handoffs. Read-only and not billed.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Agent Handoff
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses two behavioral traits: read-only (no mutations) and not billed (no cost). This is sufficient for a zero-parameter tool. No additional behavioral claims are needed.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no extra words. Highly concise and structured.
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?
Description specifies what is returned (count and recent handoffs). Without output schema, it could be more specific about format or count limits, but the zero-parameter nature makes it fairly complete for its complexity.
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?
Zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter info because none exist. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the tool returns total handoff count and most recent handoffs. The verb 'Return' and specific resource make the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'handoff' by being a stats retrieval.
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?
Description notes the tool is read-only and not billed, implying safe usage without side effects. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'handoff', the stateless nature is clear. No prerequisites or alternatives are mentioned, but the simplicity of the tool makes usage self-evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one is read-only for retrieving usage stats, the other is a metered operation for performing a handoff. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Naming Consistency4/5
Both tools use snake_case, but one is a verb (handoff) while the other is verb_noun (get_usage_stats). This minor inconsistency is offset by clear and predictable naming within a small set.
Tool Count5/5
With only two tools, the server is lean and focused on its single purpose—agent handoff. Every tool earns its place, and there is no bloat or deficiency given the narrow domain.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for the server's purpose: a read operation to inspect handoff history and a write operation to execute handoffs. No obvious gaps exist for this utility.