Read the signed-in person's email and display name. Requires an OAuth bearer token with profile:read.
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": "get_my_account"
}
}| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two facts that matter most: this is a read-only operation and it needs an OAuth token with the profile:read scope. It does not describe failure behavior when the token is missing or under-scoped, which would have made it a 5.
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 short sentences with zero filler: the operation and its returned fields come first, the auth requirement second. Nothing here could be cut without losing information.
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?
With no output schema, the description steps in to name the returned fields (email, display name) and the auth scope, which is enough for an agent to call it and interpret the result. Only the unauthenticated/error path is left unspecified.
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 document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter noise.
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?
'Read' is a specific verb and 'the signed-in person's email and display name' names exactly what is returned, which clearly separates it from siblings like get_my_credits or get_studio_pricing. It stops short of naming an alternative outright, but the resource scope is unambiguous.
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 supplies a concrete precondition ('Requires an OAuth bearer token with profile:read'), which tells the agent when the call can succeed. However, it never states when to prefer this over the other 'my'-scoped siblings or what to do when identity is already known, so usage routing is only implied.
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.