Switch to a different account (a separate company or billing account the user belongs to). All later tool calls work on that account. Use list_accounts first to see the accounts and their ids. To switch between clients inside the same account, use select_workspace instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | Yes | Account prefix ID (e.g. 'acct_xxx') or numeric ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds the critical non-obvious trait that this is a session-scoped state mutation affecting all subsequent calls. It does not mention failure behavior for an invalid or inaccessible account_id, so it stops short of full disclosure.
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?
Three short sentences: what it does, what it affects, and how to pick correctly. The stateful side effect is front-loaded right after the purpose, and no sentence repeats the title or schema.
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 single-required-parameter state-switch tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, downstream effect, and the sibling alternative. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and already documents the accepted formats ('acct_xxx' or numeric), so baseline is 3. The description adds provenance the schema lacks: that valid ids should be obtained from list_accounts, which steers the agent away from guessing an id.
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?
Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Switch to a different account') and immediately parenthesizes what an account is ('a separate company or billing account the user belongs to'), which disambiguates it from the many post/queue siblings. It also explicitly names select_workspace as the confusable tool, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.
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?
Gives an explicit prerequisite ('Use list_accounts first to see the accounts and their ids') and an explicit alternative with its selection condition ('To switch between clients inside the same account, use select_workspace instead'). Both the when-to-use and when-not-to-use cases are covered.
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.
