create_account_sessionMint a short-lived mgmt_ token for a local HTML console (account:read, billing:portal, project:members). Never put nv_ keys in HTML.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that the token is short-lived, scoped to specific permissions, and unsafe to embed in HTML alongside nv_ keys. This adds useful behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.
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 short, focused sentences deliver the action, scope, and security warning without filler. The most important information is 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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, scopes, and a key security constraint. It does not spell out the return format, but 'Mint a ... token' implies the output, so the description is sufficient for this simple 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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Mint') and names the exact resource ('short-lived mgmt_ token') along with its scopes (account:read, billing:portal, project:members). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_account_console_kit.
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?
It states the intended context ('for a local HTML console') and gives an explicit constraint ('Never put nv_ keys in HTML'). It does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the use case is clear.
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 map to a clear resource+action pair, and the descriptions explicitly separate similar sounds like checkout vs mpp_upgrade and get_upload_url vs get_upload_urls_batch. A few tools overlap in reported data (get_account, get_quotas_and_usage, get_project_usage), but their descriptions make the scoping clear enough for selection.
The set overwhelmingly follows a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: list_projects, create_project, update_project_settings, delete_form_submission. A few names like billing_portal, checkout, bootstrap, and mpp_upgrade deviate from that pattern, but they are still short and readable.
43 tools is a large surface, and many are micro-endpoints such as get_upload_url/get_upload_urls_batch, confirm_upload/confirm_uploads_batch, and several overlapping usage/account views. The broad platform scope explains some of the size, but the collection feels over-fragmented and heavier than an agent needs.
The server covers core lifecycle workflows for projects, files, deploys, billing, members, and forms. Notable gaps remain: there is no delete_project, delete_form, or remove/delete custom domain, so the surface is not fully CRUD-complete for the domain it represents.