get_accountThe account this person belongs to, and their role in it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The account's name. | |
| role | Yes | `member` reads; `admin` also creates, renames and deletes MCPs and manages the team; `owner` also deletes the account. | |
| user_id | Yes | The caller. | |
| account_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered by structured metadata. The description adds some context by indicating the response includes the person's role, but it discloses no additional behavioral traits such as authentication assumptions, scoping to the current user, or any side effects.
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 compact phrase with no filler. It front-loads the core resource ('The account') and adds the role detail efficiently, so 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?
With no parameters and a rich output schema, the description is largely complete for a simple read-only lookup. The only minor gap is that 'this person' is not explicitly defined as the current authenticated user, but the tool name and zero-parameter schema make that a reasonable inference.
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 there is little for the description to add about parameters. The phrase 'this person' implies the account refers to the current user, which is useful context given the absence of any identifier parameter.
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 identifies the resource as the account the person belongs to and includes their role, which adds useful specificity beyond the title. It partially distinguishes from siblings like get_company and get_profile by framing the result as an account membership rather than a company or profile, though the tool's verb is only in the name.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention get_company, get_profile, or list_members, nor does it explain whether this is the current user's account or another member's account.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.