get_accountShows the HiveRef user and organisation this connection is signed in as: the user's name, email and role, and the organisation's name and plan.
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": "get_account"
}
}| 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by specifying the returned payload (identity plus organisation plan), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of noting failure modes, such as unauthenticated or expired connections.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the tool's identity and followed by the concrete fields returned. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.
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 identity lookup with rich annotations and no output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing piece: what the response contains. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is absent.
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 there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing any input expectations.
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?
States a specific verb ("Shows") and a specific resource (the HiveRef user and organisation this connection is signed in as), then enumerates the exact fields returned: user name, email, role, organisation name, plan. That is unambiguous and distinguishable from every sibling, which all deal with reference checks and question templates.
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 implied by the nature of an identity tool – an agent calls it to learn who it is acting as – but the description never says when to call it (e.g. before other calls, or to confirm the org plan) nor names any alternative or exclusion. Adequate but left to inference.
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.