get_accountRead the account that owns this API key, including plan, limits, today's usage, and the prepaid credit balance in USD.
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 read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the description correctly spends its words on content instead. It discloses the substantive return contents (plan, limits, usage window, USD credit balance), which is meaningful because no output schema exists. It stops short of noting freshness/caching or what happens with an invalid or expired key.
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 with no boilerplate or repetition of the name/title. Every clause adds information about scope or returned fields.
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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers both input semantics (implicit account from key) and return shape. Minor gaps remain around usage-window definition, data freshness, and failure behavior.
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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The mention that the account is derived from the API key implicitly confirms that no account-id parameter is needed.
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?
Specific verb+resource ('Read the account') plus an explicit enumeration of the payload (plan, limits, today's usage, prepaid credit balance in USD). This clearly distinguishes it from the show/episode/script-audio siblings, which operate on content resources rather than the API-key's own account.
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 'the account that owns this API key' implies context (self-scoped, no account identifier needed) and there is no sibling alternative to route away from. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, such as checking limits before a costly job or verifying credit before create_script_audio_job, which an agent would need to infer.
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.