lago_get_customer_current_usageRetrieve a customer's usage-based billing data for the current period. Lago API: GET /customers/{external_customer_id}/current_usage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apply_taxes | No | Whether taxes should be applied. Defaults to true. | |
| external_customer_id | Yes | The customer external unique identifier. | |
| external_subscription_id | Yes | The subscription's external unique identifier (required). |
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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates safe read operation. The description adds that it returns usage-based billing data and the API endpoint, providing context beyond the annotation. No contradictions.
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 with two sentences, front-loaded with the key action and resource. No wasted words.
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 no output schema and low complexity, the description is adequate. It conveys the tool's purpose and API path. Missing details about response structure or pagination, but acceptable for a simple retrieval tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation.
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 clearly states it retrieves a customer's usage-based billing data for the current period, using a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'lago_get_customer_past_usage' by specifying 'current period'.
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 description implies usage for current period data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like past usage or other billing tools. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.
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 entity and action (e.g., lago_get_customer vs. lago_create_customer, lago_list_invoices vs. lago_get_invoice), with no overlapping purposes. The separation between analytics, customer, invoice, subscription, and other resource types is clear.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lower_snake_case and the 'lago_' prefix. Actions like 'get', 'list', 'create', and 'retrieve-related' (e.g., lago_get_customer_current_usage) are uniform, making the naming predictable.
With 24 tools, the server covers a broad range of billing/analytics operations. While slightly high, each tool serves a distinct purpose for reading or creating core entities and analytics. The count is well-scoped for its domain.
The server overwhelmingly focuses on read operations (list/get) with only two write tools (create_customer, create_event). Missing CRUD for invoices, subscriptions, plans, add-ons, coupons, credit notes, and wallets limits agents to mostly read-only workflows, creating significant gaps for managing billing lifecycles.