get_accountGet account details for the authenticated user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | The account — id, company name and details, onboarding state, and the plan it is on. | |
| success | Yes | True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "description": "The account — id, company name and details, onboarding state, and the plan it is on.",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "description": "True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "success"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'authenticated user' scope but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as required permissions or response format. It does not contradict the 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It efficiently communicates the essential purpose and scope for a zero-parameter read-only tool.
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 no-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient for invoking the tool correctly. Minor ambiguity exists around what 'account' includes versus sibling tools, but the output schema can clarify return values.
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, and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter explanation is needed, and the description is consistent with the empty schema.
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?
Description clearly states a specific verb ('get'), resource ('account details'), and scope ('authenticated user'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It is not a tautology, but it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling getters like get_current_user or get_company.
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?
The phrase 'for the authenticated user' provides useful context about when this tool applies, suggesting it targets the caller's own account. However, it offers no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the choice somewhat implied rather than explicit.
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.