get_accountBalance in EUR, how long it lasts at the current spend, whether an SSH key is set, and limits.
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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read. The description adds substantive return content—balance in EUR, spend runway, SSH key presence, and limits—which is useful because there is no output schema, though it does not describe format or caveats around 'limits'.
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 compact list with no filler, and the most important item (balance) comes first. It is slightly fragmented and the trailing 'limits' is underdefined, but it does not waste space.
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 getter, the description covers the main account fields an agent would need to decide whether to call it. Because there is no output schema, however, it should be more precise about what 'limits' and the runway value actually contain.
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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.
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 enumerates account data points (EUR balance, runway at current spend, SSH key presence, limits), so an agent can infer it returns account status. However, it is a noun-phrase field list rather than a statement of what the tool does, and it does not explicitly frame itself against the server-oriented siblings.
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 when-to-use guidance or exclusion is given. The sibling names are server-management tools, which implies this is the account-level read, but the description itself does not state that an agent should call it for account status or when not to call it.
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.