account_infoShows the connected Bannerproof account: plan, how many monitored domains it allows and uses, and the remaining audit credits.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "account_info"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value by disclosing the actual content of the response (plan, domain allowance vs. usage, remaining audit credits). It doesn't mention caching, freshness, or auth-prerequisite behavior, which is a minor gap for a read-only status call.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the returned fields itemized after a colon. No filler, no repetition of the title or name.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does by naming the three categories of data returned. It could be slightly stronger by noting that counts are per-plan limits, but an agent has enough to call it and interpret the result.
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 no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is reported as 100%, and nothing in the description misleads about inputs.
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?
States a specific verb ('Shows') and resource ('the connected Bannerproof account') and enumerates the returned fields: plan, monitored domain allowance/usage, and remaining audit credits. This distinguishes it from every sibling, all of which operate on domains or scans rather than account-level data.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for account/plan/quota questions, and the fact that it takes no parameters reinforces that. No explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative is given, though for a lone zero-arg informational tool there is little ambiguity to resolve.
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.