get_accountGet your plan, page-quota usage, and entitlement flags (size cap, custom slug, password, branding). Call before publishing so you know your limits up front.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| plan | Yes | ||
| password | No | ||
| analytics | No | ||
| pageQuota | No | ||
| pagesUsed | No | ||
| sizeCapMb | No | ||
| customSlug | No | ||
| noBranding | No | ||
| pagesRemaining | No | ||
| permanentLinks | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying the exact data returned (plan, quota, flags). It does not mention any edge cases but covers core behavior.
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, no fluff. Front-loaded with what the tool returns, immediately followed by a practical usage tip.
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?
The description explains the return content and a primary use case. With an output schema present (though not shown), it does not need to detail return format. Sufficient for a simple read-only tool.
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?
No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. Description does not need to add parameter info, and it correctly omits any.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves specific account info: plan, page-quota usage, and entitlement flags. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that deal with pages, not account data.
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 advises using the tool before publishing to know limits, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, though none are needed given sibling scope.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: delete, get account, get page metadata, list pages, publish new, update existing. No overlap or ambiguity.
All names follow a lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern (delete_page, get_account, get_page, list_my_pages, update_page) with only 'publish' being a single verb but still clear and consistent with the pattern.
6 tools cover the core operations of a page hosting service (CRUD, list, account info) without being too many or too few. The scope is well-scoped.
The tool set covers CRUD and listing, but notably get_page does not return the page body, so agents cannot retrieve published content via API. Missing tools like 'search pages' or account management, but the core workflow is largely complete.