get_my_planFor a connected AdCreator merchant: your current plan and price, and exactly what each higher plan adds (more videos, longer video duration) with pricing. Requires your AdCreator connection token. If not connected, it explains how to connect. Read-only.
| 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?
Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description discloses the auth prerequisite (AdCreator connection token) and the conditional behavior when not connected (explains how to connect). This adds meaningful behavioral context with no contradiction.
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 tight sentences with no filler. The target audience and main deliverable are front-loaded, and the auth requirement and fallback behavior are covered economically.
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 no-parameter, read-only information tool without an output schema, the description says what is returned, under what precondition, and what happens when that precondition fails. Nothing essential is missing.
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 burden on the description. The schema is empty and the description aligns with that by not implying any 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 outcome: it reports the merchant's current plan, price, and the exact additions and pricing of each higher plan. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like generate_ad_headlines and get_my_ad_usage.
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?
Provides clear context by specifying it is for a connected AdCreator merchant and notes the connection-token requirement. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it.
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.
The three tools have clearly separate purposes: one generates ad headlines, one reports usage, and one reports plan details. The two account-related tools could theoretically be confused, but their descriptions make the distinction between usage limits and plan details clear.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with no mixed conventions. generate_ad_headlines, get_my_ad_usage, and get_my_plan are all predictable and readable.
Three tools is a reasonable, focused set for a niche server that handles headline generation plus basic account checks. It is slightly minimal but not too thin for the stated purpose.
The core advertised functionality is covered: headline generation, usage monitoring, and plan information. There are minor gaps such as no explicit creative-generation or account-management tools, but these fall outside the primary headline-generation scope.