sprkly_get_account_summaryPlan tier, trial state, connected account count, scheduled post counts by status, and the next three upcoming posts. Never returns tokens or secrets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the read-only safety profile. The description adds a valuable behavioral guarantee ('Never returns tokens or secrets') and specifies the exact return items, giving useful context beyond 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?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence lists the returned components, and the second sentence provides a security guarantee. Every word earns its place, with 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 read-only, parameterless tool, the description fully covers the output content and the security guarantee. It does not detail the structure of 'next three upcoming posts' or error behavior, but these are likely minor given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations.
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 the description need not explain input semantics. The schema is empty, and the description's focus on output content is appropriate; a score of 4 is the baseline for no-parameter tools.
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 explicitly enumerates the exact fields returned (plan tier, trial state, connected account count, scheduled post counts, next three upcoming posts), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. The name 'get_account_summary' directly aligns with the description, and the content distinguishes it from siblings like billing or analytics.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_billing_summary or get_analytics. Usage is implied by the listed summary contents, but no alternative guidance or exclusion scenarios are provided.
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 target distinct resources and actions, and detailed descriptions make subtle differences clear. Minor ambiguity exists between sprkly_list_profiles and sprkly_list_connected_social_accounts, and between sprkly_get_post_status and sprkly_get_post_approval_status, but the descriptions provide enough context to disambiguate.
All tools share the sprkly_ prefix and use a snake_case verb_noun pattern. Read operations are consistently split between get_ for singular/detail and list_ for plural collections, with action verbs like schedule, draft, delete, request, and validate following the same clear style.
18 tools is on the heavier side, but the server covers a broad social media workflow spanning scheduling, approvals, analytics, billing, and automation templates. A few tools are explicitly optional, like sprkly_add_media_from_url and sprkly_get_tiktok_posting_options, so the set could be tightened slightly, but the count remains defensible for the scope.
The core post lifecycle is well covered: draft, validate, schedule, update, delete, get status, and approval flow. Minor gaps exist around draft/media library management and automation template listing/deletion, but agents can accomplish the main scheduling tasks without dead ends.