Read your profile, caller verification, revision, account defaults, setup progress and notices. Use update_account for profile changes and set_onboarding for setup state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "additionalProperties": {},
- "properties": {
- "account": {
- "additionalProperties": {},
- "propertyNames": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "type": "object"
- },
- "operation_id": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "account"
- ],
- "type": "object"
- },
- {
- "additionalProperties": {},
- "properties": {
- "error": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "message": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "error"
- ],
- "type": "object"
- },
- {
- "additionalProperties": {},
- "properties": {
- "message": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "next_action": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "operation_id": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "status": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "operation_id",
- "status"
- ],
- "type": "object"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "account": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "notices": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "created_at": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "maxLength": 200,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "message",
+ "created_at"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "onboarding": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "inboundAvailable": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "intent": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "enum": [
+ "inbound",
+ "outbound",
+ "both"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "required": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "trialEligible": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "required",
+ "intent",
+ "trialEligible",
+ "inboundAvailable"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "operation_id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "account",
+ "onboarding",
+ "notices"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "error": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "error"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "next_action": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "operation_id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "operation_id",
+ "status"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's added value is the content scope (what account facets are read), but it says nothing about auth/caller-verification requirements or freshness/caching behavior. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.
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, zero filler. The read scope is front-loaded and the disambiguation sentence follows immediately, so an agent gets both purpose and routing in the first glance.
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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and with zero parameters there are no input semantics to cover. The remaining gap is minor: it does not hint at when in a workflow the read should be performed or what "caller verification" implies for authentication context.
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; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description correctly does not waste words on inputs and instead spends its budget on scope and sibling routing.
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?
Opens with a specific verb ("Read") and enumerates the exact account facets returned: profile, caller verification, revision, account defaults, setup progress and notices. It also names the two siblings it is not (update_account, set_onboarding), so an agent can separate it from the mutation tools without opening any schema.
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 second sentence gives explicit routing: use update_account for profile changes and set_onboarding for setup state. That is a concrete when-to-use-this-vs-alternative rule rather than an implied one.
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.