get_accountThe account behind this key: email and whether it is confirmed, plan state (trial days left, applications used and remaining, subscription), and how many API keys are active.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful scoping context: the data belongs to the account behind the calling key, which clarifies the operation's anchor and why zero parameters suffice. No contradiction with annotations.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the scope ('The account behind this key') before a compact colon-list of return contents. Every clause carries distinct information — identity, verification, plan details, key count — with no filler or redundancy.
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 getter with no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden well, enumerating fields in commendable detail. Minor gaps remain: terms like 'applications used' and the exact shape of subscription state are slightly ambiguous, and error behavior is unmentioned, but nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.
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 and the input schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline-4 rule applies. The description's scoping phrase ('behind this key') implicitly confirms the account is resolved from the caller's credentials rather than from any 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?
States a specific resource ('the account behind this key') and enumerates exactly what it returns: email, confirmation status, plan state (trial days, applications used/remaining, subscription), and active API key count. The scope is precise and informative, though it does not explicitly differentiate from overlapping siblings like get_my_profile or list_api_keys.
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?
Provides no when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or references to alternatives. With 47 siblings including get_my_profile, list_api_keys, and get_billing_portal_link, the agent must infer purely from the field list when to select this tool; the description never addresses the choice among similar getters.
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.
Tool purposes are generally distinct and well-described, but a few clusters overlap in function: answer_screening_question vs save_answer both write to the answer book, get_my_profile vs get_account both report plan status, and the CV preview/sent-CV/base-CV tools could be confused. The detailed descriptions mitigate most misselection, so this is only a minor issue.
The set almost uniformly uses snake_case verb_noun names like list_, get_, update_, create_, delete_, and start_/stop_. Minor deviations such as login, describe_what_i_want, and the get_my_* vs list_* alternation prevent a perfect score, but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.
49 tools is far above the 25+ threshold and will burden agent tool selection even though many are legitimate single-purpose operations. Several groups could be consolidated—billing links, API-key management, and the CV PDF family—without hurting clarity.
The surface covers the full lifecycle: account creation/auth, profile and CV, targeting, matching, apply runs, screening answers, tracking, billing, export, and deletion. Minor gaps remain, such as no application-level detail/withdrawal endpoint and no direct way to save a parsed CV without re-uploading, but agents can work around them.