get_my_accessReports this connection: the authenticated account email, granted scopes (ut:read / ut:write), and how many workspaces it can read. Use it to check what this connection is allowed to do.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that by saying 'Reports'. It adds valuable detail about the exact data returned (email, scopes, readable workspace count), which goes beyond the annotation. It does not mention potential edge cases or error conditions, but for a zero-parameter read-only report this is adequate.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb 'Reports', and every phrase adds value. There is no redundancy or filler.
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, read-only tool with no output schema, this description provides all essential information: what it reports, why to use it, and how it relates to the connection. No additional context is needed 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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds context by explaining what the tool reports, which is sufficient given there is nothing to parameterize. The 0-param baseline of 4 applies.
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's purpose with a specific verb 'Reports' and defines exactly what it reports: the authenticated account email, granted scopes (ut:read / ut:write), and workspace count. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workspaces or get_session, which serve different functions.
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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use it to check what this connection is allowed to do.' It clearly indicates when to invoke this tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Since the tool has a unique role and no parameters, this is sufficient.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource and action. Even get_ut, which returns comprehensive data, doesn't replace the specialized get_session, get_transcript, or get_quantitative_report for detailed views. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
All names follow a verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., add_task, get_ut, list_workspaces). The main inconsistency is using 'create' for UTs (create_ut) but 'add' for child entities (add_use_case, add_task), and having a separate update_scenario instead of folding it into update_ut, but the convention is still predictable.
With 18 tools, the set is slightly above the typical 3-15 well-scoped range, but the domain of usability testing requires distinct operations for drafting (use cases, tasks, scenario), reading results (reports, sessions, transcripts), and comparison. Each tool has a clear role, so the count feels reasonable rather than excessive.
The tool surface covers the core lifecycle: create, read, update, and delete for tasks/use cases, plus comprehensive retrieval of results and notes. Minor gaps include no delete_ut (UTs cannot be removed) and no explicit status change or cloning mechanism, but these are likely intentional app-side actions, so the surface is not severely incomplete.