Check the current user's account status: API call balance, plan, enabled/disabled graphs, and profile info. Use when the user asks "how many API calls do I have?", "what plan am I on?", "what graphs can I access?", or similar account questions. Returns live data — not cached from session start.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by noting the tool returns 'live data — not cached from session start', which is useful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. 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?
Two sentences: first states purpose and data returned, second provides usage examples and a behavioral note. Every sentence is informative and earns its place. Highly efficient and front-loaded.
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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, what data it returns, when to use it, and a key behavioral trait (live data). No gaps.
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?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly omits any parameter details. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and no additional information is needed.
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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('current user's account status'), listing concrete data points (API call balance, plan, graphs, profile). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_capabilities or list_graphs by focusing on account-specific metrics.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool by giving example user queries ('how many API calls do I have?', 'what plan am I on?'). While it doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions, the context is sufficiently clear for an AI agent to select correctly.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct roles: graph discovery, graph search, node detail, neighbor mapping, evidence retrieval, deep research launch, and status polling are all identifiable. The main ambiguity is between search_graph and get_label_values(label='Trend') for listing trends, and between deep_research_topic's built-in supplemental coverage and get_supplemental_context.
The set largely follows a snake_case verb_noun pattern such as search_graph, list_graphs, get_node, read_url, and generate_visual. The outlier is deep_research_topic, which is noun-led rather than verb-led, and get_my_account is a minor deviation from the pure verb_noun pattern, but neither seriously disrupts usability.
14 tools is well-scoped for a deep-research platform: graph discovery, graph search, retrieval, evidence, supplemental data, status polling, visualization, URL ingestion, and account/capability helpers all earn their place. The set feels like a deliberate pipeline rather than a miscellany.
The research lifecycle is well covered: discover graphs, search, explore trends, get supporting evidence, add supplemental data, launch deep research, poll status, and generate visuals. Minor conveniences like canceling or listing past research sessions are missing, but there are no dead ends for the core workflow.