VarynForge

Get account status

get_account_status

Read-only

Get the operator account status — the organization whose plan/credits/limits this payload describes (plans and usage limits are per-organization; see list_organizations), current plan, available credits, brief quota state, the lint_draft daily verification cap (applies on every tier; check lint_drafts_remaining_today before a verification loop), the idea_checks allowance (check_idea is daily- AND monthly-capped on every tier; check remaining before a check loop), locked paid tools, the upgrade URL, and next_actions: the ranked cross-project queue of what to do next. Defaults to the personal organization; pass organizationId when working a project that belongs to a different organization — its shared caps are the ones project actions consume. Read on session start and after a wall hit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`organizationId`	No

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a read-only operation. The description reinforces this by stating it is a read operation and adds transparency about shared caps and default org behavior, which is not covered by the annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is overly verbose and repetitive. It lists the same items multiple times (e.g., plan/credits/limits, lint/draft caps) with redundant phrasings like 'the organization whose plan/credits/limits this payload describes' and 'its shared caps are the ones project actions consume.' It could be condensed to a few sentences without losing meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately enumerates the return fields and explains the reading context. It also mentions related tools (check_idea, lint_draft, list_organizations) for further actions, making it complete for an agent to decide when and how to call it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema only provides a parameter name and type without any description. The description adds meaningful semantics: it explains the default (personal org) and when to override, plus the concept of shared caps. This is crucial for correct usage and fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool retrieves the operator account status, enumerating the specific data returned (plan, credits, quota state, lint/draft caps, locked tools, upgrade URL, next actions). It is distinct from sibling getter tools like get_project or get_draft_status, which target different resources.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Read on session start and after a wall hit.' It also explains the default behavior (personal organization) and when to pass organizationId, and references list_organizations for per-org details. It lacks explicit comparison to alternatives but provides sufficient context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All VarynForge tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but a few pairs could confuse an agent: add_article_suggestion vs create_article_suggestion_with_input, and get_article_brief vs download_brief_markdown vs get_write_handoff all deal with brief content. The detailed descriptions help disambiguate, but the overlap is real.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case (create_project, list_opportunities, generate_article_brief, lint_draft). There is no mixing of camelCase, acronyms, or vague verbs, making the naming predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

50 tools is excessive for an MCP server, even for a broad platform like content operations. While the scope is large, this many tools will overwhelm agents and increase latency and context cost. Most practical servers are well under 25.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the full content lifecycle: project creation, research, opportunity clustering, content planning, briefs, drafting, linting, publishing, and reporting. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete_project, no remove_destination, no direct analytics beyond distributions), but they are workarounds or handled in the web UI.

Resources

Need Help?