get_my_planThe user's current YouSpot plan and credit balance, plus which plan they could move to. Call it before answering anything about pricing, plans, upgrading, credits or limits (brain cap, mailboxes, model). The response names the upgrade_plan value to emit; the card that renders from it does the purchase, so never say a payment happened.
| 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 description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining that the tool returns an 'upgrade_plan value' that a card consumes, and that the card performs the purchase. This prevents the agent from falsely reporting a completed transaction and discloses the tool's read-only nature without contradicting 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It packs usage timing, output contents, and a critical behavioral warning without redundancy.
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 parameterless, read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies all necessary context: what data is returned, when to invoke it, and how to interpret the response. Nothing essential is missing.
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 has zero parameters, so the schema already provides complete coverage (100%). The description adds no unnecessary parameter details; the baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool where schema coverage is complete.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the user's current YouSpot plan, credit balance, and upgrade options. It also adds precise domain context (pricing, plans, upgrading, credits, limits) that distinguishes it from unrelated sibling tools.
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?
It explicitly instructs when to call the tool: 'Call it before answering anything about pricing, plans, upgrading, credits or limits'. It also provides a behavioral directive about not implying a payment happened, leaving no ambiguity about how to handle the result.
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.