Retrieve your Echosaw account profile including subscription tier, email, organization membership, and free tier status. Use this to understand your current plan limits and account details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact data returned (subscription tier, email, organization membership, free tier status) and the practical use case, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and outputs; the second provides the usage context. Every phrase earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important 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?
Given the tool has no parameters, is annotated as read-only and idempotent, and has no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what data it returns, and when to use it. There are no gaps in the provided information.
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 has zero parameters, so the schema already documents everything. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-level details. It correctly avoids inventing parameters.
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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource as 'your Echosaw account profile.' It enumerates the key data fields (subscription tier, email, organization membership, free tier status), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like echosaw_get_organization by focusing on the personal account rather than an organization.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to understand your current plan limits and account details.' This provides clear context for usage, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusions. Since no closely related sibling tool exists, 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.
Each tool targets a distinct action and resource: analysis jobs (submit, check, get results, download), folder management (create, delete, list, rename), media operations (list, move, search, set visibility), and account info (organization, profile). There is no overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tools follow the consistent pattern `echosaw_<verb>_<noun>`, using clear verbs like analyze, check, create, delete, get, list, move, rename, search, and set. The naming style is uniform and predictable across the entire set.
With 14 tools, the server covers a well-scoped platform for media analysis and library management. Each tool serves a clear purpose without feeling bloated or sparse, fitting comfortably within the ideal range.
The server covers the full analysis workflow, folder organization, media searching, and account retrieval. Minor gaps exist such as lack of media deletion or job cancellation, but core workflows are well supported and no critical dead ends are apparent.
