get_accountGet the current plan, its limits, and how much of them is already used. Call this FIRST when setting up monitoring — it tells you how many checks you can create and the fastest check interval the plan allows, so you can plan within the plan instead of hitting errors halfway through.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations: it specifies that the return covers plan limits and current usage, and frames the call as a guard against later errors.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and then its recommended timing and purpose. No filler; each sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information.
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 zero-parameter, read-only retrieval with rich annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough: what is returned, why it matters, and when to call it. It could be slightly richer about the return shape, but it is adequate.
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 takes zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default and the description need not explain parameter usage. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to misinterpret.
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: get the current plan, its limits, and how much of them is used. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_alert_settings or list_checks by scoping to account-level plan data rather than checks, alerts, or status pages.
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 says to 'Call this FIRST when setting up monitoring' and explains the payoff: knowing check limits and the fastest interval. It gives clear context for use, though it does not name a specific alternative tool or state when not to use 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.