get_usageCheck this account's remaining prepaid credits and subscription status. Call this before large batches to avoid running out of credits mid-workflow. When the account cannot bill more documents, a human can top up at the returned buy_credits_url.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: it explains the consequence of running out of credits and mentions the buy_credits_url return value. This enriches the read-only nature with actionable context.
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?
Three concise sentences deliver purpose, usage timing, and critical behavioral detail without redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action.
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 no-parameter, read-only tool with annotations, the description fully covers purpose, usage context, and follow-up action. The mention of buy_credits_url compensates for the lack of an output schema.
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?
Tool has zero parameters, so the empty schema fully covers parameter needs. Baseline of 4 applies since no param documentation is required.
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 explicitly states the tool checks account credits and subscription status, using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools focused on document operations.
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?
Provides explicit guidance to call before large batches to avoid credit shortfalls, which is clear context for usage. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is strong.
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 targets a distinct action and resource: single extraction, batch extraction, document retrieval, listing, export, corrections, reconciliation, and account usage. extract_bol vs extract_batch is the only close pair, but single vs batch is a clear distinction.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores: export_documents, extract_batch, extract_bol, get_document, get_related_documents, get_usage, list_documents, save_corrections. No mixed styles or vague verbs.
8 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool earns its place by covering a distinct step in the document processing workflow, with no redundancy or bloat.
The toolkit covers the full lifecycle: extraction (single and batch), retrieval (get/list), update (save_corrections), export, reconciliation, and account management. There are no obvious gaps that would hinder agent workflows.