account_statusThe user's Gaurmon plan: trial days left, or the paid plan and when it renews. Free.
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": "account_status"
}
}| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it discloses the shape of the returned information (trial days left vs. paid plan plus renewal date) and states 'Free,' telling the agent the call costs nothing and can be made freely. It omits error behavior for users with no plan, but this is solid value-add.
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?
A single compact sentence with the returned content front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'Free.' is slightly jarring as a fragment, but it earns its place by telling the agent the call is costless.
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 zero-parameter, read-only lookup, the description covers what an agent needs: what it returns and that calling is free, while annotations carry the safety profile and no output schema exists to compete with. Only the edge case of a user with no plan is unaddressed.
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 the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are required, since it asks only for 'the user's' plan, which is implicitly resolved from context.
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 names the exact resource (the user's Gaurmon plan) and what it reveals: trial days remaining or the paid plan with its renewal date. That is far more specific than the title 'Gaurmon account status' and cannot be confused with any sibling, all of which are price/shopping/list tools. It lacks a leading verb, but the resource and returned content are 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?
Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it needs to know subscription state. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternatives are named — though the sibling list contains no overlapping tool, so the risk of misselection is low.
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.