get_accountThe account holder's profile and security posture (GET /v1/account). 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": "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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes beyond that only the cost note ('Free') and the HTTP endpoint. It says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or what 'security posture' concretely includes.
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 front-loaded sentence naming the returned content first, then the endpoint and cost. No filler; slightly terse in a way that trades away guidance for brevity.
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 output schema and no parameters, the description is the only place a caller can learn what comes back, and 'profile and security posture' is only a summary. It is adequate to select the tool, but it leaves the return shape and any auth context unexplained for a tool whose output the agent must interpret.
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 for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The endpoint hint is a small bonus confirming it is a no-argument GET.
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 (get) and resource (the account holder) and characterizes the payload as 'profile and security posture', which distinguishes it from get_organization and get_connection. It also pins the endpoint (GET /v1/account). Not quite a 5 because it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tools that also return account-like data.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. An agent reading the sibling list (get_organization, get_connection, update_settings) has to infer on its own that this is the per-user profile read rather than the org-level one. The word 'Free' implies cost but says nothing about invocation conditions.
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.