Return the authenticated Encirca account profile and selected team profile from the verified Auth0 token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| success | No | ||
| originalUser | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as true, true, false – so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds that it uses the 'verified Auth0 token', implying authentication dependency, which is useful context beyond annotations. It doesn't disclose any other behavioral traits such as caching, rate limits, or what happens if the token is invalid.
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 a single, concise sentence that contains all necessary information. It is front-loaded with the purpose and includes key behavioral context (authenticated, Auth0 token). Every word earns its place.
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 zero parameters and a rich output schema (though not detailed here), the description reasonably covers the purpose. It lacks guidance on error conditions (e.g., invalid token, missing team profile) and does not mention if the team profile part is optional. The sibling set includes 'get_account_identity', which could overlap in functionality, and no clarification is provided.
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% with zero parameters, so the description has no parameters to document. The description adds meaning by stating the source of data (Auth0 token) and the scope of the return (profile and team profile), which helps the agent understand what it will receive without needing 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 clearly states the tool returns an Encirca account profile and selected team profile from an authenticated Auth0 token. The verb 'Return' and resource 'authenticated Encirca account profile and selected team profile' are specific. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'get_account_identity', which also likely returns account-related profile info.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_account_identity' or other tools. It does not mention prerequisites like authentication state or context, nor does it state when not 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.
Most tools have distinct purposes (pricing, checkout, account info, domain management), though 'get_account_identity' and 'get_account_profile' overlap somewhat in returning account details. Descriptions help differentiate them, but an agent could confuse which one to use for a given account query.
Tool names consistently use verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_domain_price, list_my_domains, get_domain_details). Minor inconsistency: 'suggest_available_domains' uses adjective_noun instead of noun_noun, but overall the pattern is clear and predictable.
With 10 tools, the set is well-scoped for a domain management server covering pricing, checkout, account info, domain listing, and invoicing. Each tool serves a clear function without bloat.
The set covers core domain lookup, pricing, checkout, and account management, but lacks operations like domain registration confirmation, renewal, or transfer management. Gaps exist for lifecycle operations beyond initial purchase, which an agent might need.
