ClusterHack

Managing AI access to this account

account_ai_access

Read-only

How the signed-in user sees and revokes AI access to their own account — read this instead of looking for a tool that lists or cuts off connected clients, because there is deliberately no such tool.

The controls over AI access (list connected clients, revoke one, list and end live MCP sessions, read the record of what a client did as them) are gated to the account holder signing in directly: a browser session, a JWT, or an API token they hold themselves. A connected AI client — including this one — is refused, on purpose. If it were not, a client could revoke its rivals, enumerate the user's other connections, or read the trail it leaves behind. So this tool tells the user where to go and what they will find; it makes no API call and cannot fail.

Also names where account deletion and data export live: the export has a tool (account_export_data), the deletion deliberately does not.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing that the tool makes no API call, cannot fail, and is deliberately gated so that connected AI clients are refused access. It even explains the security rationale for this gating. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs to avoid misusing the tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds behavioral and security context in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place, including the rationale for why this tool exists and why it does not make an API call. It is longer than average, but the length is justified for such an unusual informational tool.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-parameter informational tool, the description is complete: it states what the user will see, what actions they can take, access restrictions, the fact that no API call is made, and where related capabilities live. Since there is no output schema, the description adequately covers the expected outcome.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema is empty with 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately stays silent on parameters and instead clarifies the tool's no-op nature, which is the only relevant semantic here.

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 immediately states the tool's verb and resource: it tells the signed-in user how to see and revoke AI access to their own account. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from any hypothetical 'lists or cuts off connected clients' tool, which the agent is told does not exist. This makes the tool's role unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: read this instead of searching for a tool that manages connected clients, because no such tool exists. It also notes that account deletion deliberately has no tool and that data export is handled by 'account_export_data', routing the agent away from wrong alternatives.

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

All ClusterHack 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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped by domain prefix and mostly target a distinct resource, but there are several near-overlapping read clusters — notably whoami/event_roles/event_my_membership (all answer 'what roles at event X'), submission_get/submission_page, team_open_roles/team_seeking_members, and company_employees/company_roster. The descriptions do an exceptional job of steering ('use this, not that'), so misselection is unlikely, but the sheer number of such pairs keeps this from a 5.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant domain_prefix + noun/verb pattern (event_, team_, submission_, company_, article_) is consistent and readable. Deviations: list_api_endpoints/list_capabilities invert the word order (verb-first) versus event_list/submission_list elsewhere, search and whoami carry no domain prefix, account_how_to_sign_in is a phrase, and read verbs vary between get/list/browse/page/preview.

Tool Count2/5

60 tools is far beyond the 25+ threshold, and the surface is purely read-only — the breadth comes from extremely granular views (22 event_* tools) and many singleton catalogs (event_cities, event_types, event_background_images, article_languages, tag_list, tech_list, company_vacancies) plus six meta/informational tools. The domain is genuinely broad and every tool is distinct, so it reads as heavy rather than chaotic, but the count is still excessive.

Completeness2/5

The set contains zero write tools — no create, update, or delete anywhere — yet the descriptions repeatedly direct callers to absent tools: event_create, event_set_branding, event_add_sponsor, event_submit_registration_answers, invite_join, team_post, team_assign_role, team_remove_member, company_fire_employee, account_export_data, and more. An agent following the descriptions will call nonexistent tools and fail. The read/browse coverage is very thorough, but the complete absence of the write side (which the descriptions themselves treat as existing) is a significant gap.

Resources

Need Help?