get_my_accountThe Meridian Dispatch account this connection is signed in to: the name (and email, unless the traveller hid it from Apple), when it was made, whether the app on a phone is signed in to it, its plan titles, and whether travel preferences are saved. Use it to confirm the account before editing, since a traveller can hold two Apple accounts. Needs sign-in.
| 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 read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description adds real context on top: an auth requirement and two data caveats (the Apple-hidden email and the possibility of two accounts making the identity ambiguous). It does not cover failure modes or what happens when unauthenticated, keeping it below a 5.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its return contents, then the usage and auth requirement. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with 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?
A parameterless read with no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and noting where data may be missing. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and interpret the response.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words on inputs.
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?
Names the specific resource (the account this connection is signed in to) and enumerates exactly what it returns: name/email, creation date, phone-app sign-in status, plan titles, and whether travel preferences are saved. That field list makes it unambiguous against siblings like get_travel_preferences or list_my_plans.
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?
Gives an explicit use case (confirm the account before editing) and a rationale (a traveller can hold two Apple accounts), plus the prerequisite 'Needs sign-in.' It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead for preference or plan data, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not routing rule.
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.