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. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / properties / success / descriptionPrevious value: -"True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead."New value: +"True when the call succeeded."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds 'for the authenticated user' but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as response shape, auth requirements, or related account scoping beyond what annotations provide.
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, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource immediately and earns every word.
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 operation with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is the lack of differentiation from similar sibling tools, which would help an agent select it confidently in a crowded toolset.
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?
There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% trivially. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description correctly adds no unnecessary parameter details.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('account details for the authenticated user'), making the core purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from closely related siblings such as get_current_user, whoami, or get_company, so it stops short of a 5.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many account/user-related siblings. The description explains what it does but gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or direction to an alternative for different needs.
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.