accounts_getGet account details for a specific platform.
Returns username and ID for the first account matching the platform.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| platform | Yes | Platform name: twitter, instagram, linkedin, tiktok, bluesky, facebook, youtube, pinterest, threads (required) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish this is read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns only the username and ID for the first matching account, which is a non-obvious selection behavior. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then the concrete return behavior. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no filler.
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 single-parameter protected tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is largely complete. The only minor gap is left unspecified what happens when no account matches the platform, but this is limited and not critical.
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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the platform parameter, listing the allowed platform names. The description does not add additional parameter semantics or examples, so it stays at the baseline while the schema carries the weight.
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 clear verb and resource: retrieving account details for a specific platform, and further specifies the exact return fields (username and ID). It is distinct enough from sibling tools like accounts_list or accounts_get_follower_stats by emphasizing the first matching account, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling for contrast.
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 description implies when to use the tool: when you need details for an account tied to a specific platform. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools that would be better for listing all accounts or retrieving health metrics.
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.
Many tools are clearly separated by domain prefix, but several overlap: posts_publish_now duplicates posts_create's publish_now mode, posts_edit_post vs posts_update is confusing without reading both descriptions, and analytics_get_analytics broadly overlaps the more specific analytics metrics tools. The descriptions do help disambiguate, but the large number of similar post/analytics helpers still creates selection risk.
Most tools follow a readable lower_snake resource_verb format, with domains like accounts_, posts_, profiles_, and queue_. However, there is notable drift: redundant suffixes (queue_create_queue_slot, tracking_tags_get_tracking_tag_stats), singular/plural mismatch (account_groups_ vs accounts_), non-prefixed helpers (call_tool, search_tools, docs_search), and paired verbs that seem arbitrary (posts_edit_post vs posts_update). It is readable but not cleanly consistent.
51 tools is far above the range where an agent can quickly select the right one, and many entries are wrappers or variants: publish_now, edit_post, retry_all_failed, and multiple analytics/queue helpers could be consolidated. The broad domain justifies more tools than a tiny server, but this count is excessive and will add navigation overhead.
The server covers the core social media management lifecycle well: profiles, accounts, posts, scheduling, queueing, analytics, comments, mentions, media uploads, tracking tags, and usage billing are all represented. There are minor gaps—tracking tags are read-only, there is no direct account connection/disconnection flow, and published-post deletion is unsupported—but agents can complete the main workflows with these tools.