Check the current API key's account info, scopes, and site count.
Requires: BOREALHOST_API_KEY env var (read scope).
Returns: {"user": {"id": "uuid", "email": "...", "date_joined": "iso8601"}, "api_key": {"id": "uuid", "name": "...", "prefix": "bh_...", "scopes": ["read", "write"], "created_at": "iso8601"}, "account": {"sites": 2, "active_subscriptions": 1}}
Errors: UNAUTHORIZED: Missing or invalid API key
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job: it discloses the required environment variable and scope, gives an exact JSON return structure, and lists the UNAUTHORIZED error condition. This paints a complete picture of a read-only operation.
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?
Compact, structured format with Description, Requires, Returns, and Errors sections. The main action is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description provides the full return JSON structure and error handling, making it complete for a parameterless tool. It covers purpose, prerequisites, output, and errors comprehensively.
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 schema is empty and there is nothing to document. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details.
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 states 'Check the current API key's account info, scopes, and site count' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_api_keys which list all keys.
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 a clear prerequisite ('Requires: BOREALHOST_API_KEY env var (read scope)') and implies usage for inspecting the current key, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.
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.
Several tools have overlapping boundaries, such as add_domain_dns vs manage_dns for DNS records, create_backup vs create_snapshot vs create_b2_snapshot for saved states, and write_file vs upload_file for file writing. Most tools are distinct, but these near-duplicates require agents to read descriptions carefully to avoid misselection.
The naming pattern is mostly consistent verb_noun in snake_case (e.g., list_* , create_*, delete_*), but there are noticeable deviations: 'add' vs 'create' for similar operations, 'delete' vs 'remove', and outliers like manage_dns, whoami, and scale. The overall style is readable but not perfectly uniform.
144 tools is far beyond the 'too many' threshold and would be unwieldy for agents to navigate. While the server covers a broad hosting platform with many distinct resources, the sheer number makes it difficult for each tool to earn its place, and many are simple list/get variants that could be consolidated.
The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive, covering site lifecycle, domains/DNS, compute instances/volumes, backups/snapshots, file management, databases, WordPress administration, email, security, monitoring, billing, webhooks, and support. A notable gap is the lack of a direct list_sites tool—agents must infer site slugs from list_subscriptions—but overall the domain is well covered.
