get_accountWhich Spellar account is connected, its plan, and what this connection may read and change (scopes). Call this when results look like the wrong account or a feature is unavailable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| plan | Yes | pro, trial or free | |
| Yes | |||
| joined | No | ||
| scopes | Yes | ||
| entitled | Yes | ||
| time_zone | Yes | ||
| history_locked_before | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / upgrade_urlRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "name",
- "email",
- "plan",
- "entitled",
- "upgrade_url",
- "scopes",
- "time_zone"
-]New value: +[
+ "name",
+ "email",
+ "plan",
+ "entitled",
+ "scopes",
+ "time_zone"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds that the result includes permission scopes, which is useful framing, but most of the remaining content (what is returned) is duplicated by the existing output schema.
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, no filler. What the tool yields comes first, the invocation trigger second — a clean front-loaded structure with every clause earning its place.
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?
With zero params, an output schema, and full annotations, the only open question was when to call it, and the description answers that. It could add a note on whether it reflects cached or live connection state, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies a single-connection lookup rather than a filtered query.
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 goes beyond the name by specifying the three things returned — connected account identity, plan, and granted scopes — which no sibling tool provides. It lacks an explicit verb but the resource and payload are unambiguous, and it is clearly distinguishable from the meeting/task/note siblings.
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?
Gives two concrete trigger conditions: results appear to come from the wrong account, or a feature is unavailable. That is explicit when-to-use guidance. No alternative tool is named, but no sibling overlaps this diagnostic role, so exclusion guidance is largely unnecessary.
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.