spendline_get_onboarding_instructionsReturn the exact steps for agent-initiated, human-authorized provisioning, including which actions require the human and which the agent may perform alone. Call this when the user has no Spendline account or no SPENDLINE_API_KEY. Never invent a key and never create an account on a human's behalf.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 description explains the tool only returns instructions and does not actually provision anything, reinforcing the readOnly and idempotent annotations. It also clarifies what it does not do, which goes beyond the annotation hints.
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 concise (two sentences), immediately states the primary purpose, and includes both the trigger and a warning. No redundant or vague language dilutes the message.
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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary context: what it returns, when to invoke it, and what it does not do. It is fully sufficient for an agent to decide and use it correctly.
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 no parameters, so there is nothing to cover. The description focuses entirely on behavior and usage, and no implicit parameters or inputs are suggested, making the parameter semantics fully adequate.
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 the tool returns exact provisioning steps and specifies the exact trigger condition (no account or no API key). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on onboarding rather than status checks, budgeting, or listing operations.
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 explicitly states when to call ('when the user has no Spendline account or no SPENDLINE_API_KEY') and provides a clear prohibition ('Never invent a key and never create an account on a human's behalf'), leaving no ambiguity about usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.